You are not logged in.

#1 2006-08-16 14:27:43

void
Member
Registered: 2006-08-15
Posts: 12

Minor question regarding partitioning and non-base packages

Okay this is my first ask for help...

I come from Slackware.  Now in Slackware, as with FreeBSD, any installations non base (i.e., not part of the OS base files such as Opera, OpenOffice, etc.) are installed into /usr/local.  Based on some google searches and forum searches and noticing this on my machine, it seems as if Arch installs these to /opt.  Also, in Slackware any temporary files from something such as swaret or downloads would go into either /tmp or /var/tmp, seems a bit different on Arch as well, although I haven't looked into this too much.

On Slackware, I would make a typical workstation partition scheme like so:

/dev/hda1 - /boot
/dev/hda2 - swap
/dev/hda3 - /
/dev/hda4 EXTENDED
/dev/hda5 - /tmp
/dev/hda6 - /var
/dev/hda7 - /var/log
/dev/hda8 - /usr
/dev/hda9 - /usr/local
/dev/hda10 - /home

So my question is, based on how Arch operates, is this still an efficient/acceptable partition scheme for a workstation (the auto partition manager just does /boot, swap, and /)?  And, if I wanted to use this layout, is there a configuration file to edit to make non-base installs use /usr/local rather than having to define that on each package/source install?

Thanks for help

--void

Offline

#2 2006-08-16 15:32:43

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,838

Re: Minor question regarding partitioning and non-base packages

Arch doesn't use /usr/local, so you can leave that out. Large packages or package suites are installed in /opt, so you'd need to allow for that. And by default, /tmp is mounted in RAM, so you don't need a physical partition for that.

Personally, I don't see any need for that many partitions - I just use /, swap, and if I'm dual booting, possibly another partition for inter-OS file sharing.

Offline

#3 2006-08-16 16:37:08

murffatksig
Member
From: Atl
Registered: 2004-05-17
Posts: 332
Website

Re: Minor question regarding partitioning and non-base packages

I could see having your /home/USER directory on another partition (or another drive) just to protect against disk problems.  Or if you decided to reinstall arch for some reason.  But I think having partitions for each little directory is a bit of overkill.


In my 10th year of Arch

Offline

#4 2006-08-16 16:41:18

void
Member
Registered: 2006-08-15
Posts: 12

Re: Minor question regarding partitioning and non-base packages

Thanks for the responses, that cleared things up.  I work in IT and am used to FreeBSD servers and whatnot so that's where the separate partitions comes from (security, recoverability, etc).

Thanks again for the help

--void

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB