CentOS - Jun 2015 - newbie question on installation over existing Linux

On 06/08/2015 02:00 PM, g wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2015 11:34 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On 06/07/2015 11:05 PM, g wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2015 07:25 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> <<>>
>>>
>>>> So, I'm not sure how to interpret what you said. Can I get
the same
>>>> results from a CentOS install using some combination of
options?
>>>
>>> because your are playing with multi flavors,
>>>  [i bet you like going to baskin-robbins for ice cream ;-) ]
>>> a solution for you would be what i did some years back and i was
>>> playing with diff flavors, my "/home" partition was
mounted in
>>> new install as /home2 and i let installation setup a /home in /.
>>>
>>> after install and booting it, as root i moved the newly created
>>> "user" home to the /home2 directory, renamed it to the
'user-flavor',
>>> then linked that back into the install /home and renamed it to
>>> "username" and changed ownership to "user"
>>>
>>> which then gave me:
>>>
>>> /home/username --> /home2/user-flavor
>>>
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
>>> so that in /home2 i had:
>>>
>>>   /home2/geo-fc3
>>>         /geo-fc4
>>>         /geo-mandrake
>>>         /geo-flavor-x
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
>>>         /geo-flavor-y
>>>
> only thing that some might call a disadvatage is
>>> i hope you can see how i did this. i am of terse thinking and
>>> do not always go into detail enough.
>>
>> Another creative approach and one I'd thought of also!
>> But...not my first choice.
> 
> did you do more than just think about it?
> 
> just what do you want for a 1st choice?
I think Peter addressed my concern and responded in a way that leads me
to believe a /home2 as you suggest is not necessary since it will be
bypassed in terms of any installation, which is what I want.
> 
> advantages of /home2 is you have a user home directory for all your
> flavors sitting in 1 partition that will not get erased because
> you are allocating it's own mount point when you install.
 I do not have and do not want one partition for my system (files). I
have ONE flavor with many partitions and mount points. A rather "old
school" approach that's worked pretty well for me all these years.
> 
> because you are using thunderbird for email client, you can set up
> Mail, ImapMail, News paths in there own director,
> 
> same applies to firefox bookmarks, passwords, certificates, etc.
> such as;
> 
>   /home/moz/
>        /moz/firefox
>        /moz/thunderbird
> 
> then link them to your 'flavor' user directory. same goes for your
> address book files abook.mab and abook-XX.mab, and other directories
> and files that are not path critical.
> 
> only thing that some might call a disadvantage is all moz progs will
> be same, unless you happen to need something in an add-on that is
> path specific.
> 
> there are many other progs that are not 'hard set' with path names.
> 
> 
-- 
--------------------------------------------
MzK

"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
 somewhere at any given time,
 the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
                          -- David Letterman

On 06/08/2015 06:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On 06/08/2015 02:00 PM, g wrote:
<<<>>>
>> just what do you want for a 1st choice?
> 
> I think Peter addressed my concern and responded in a way that leads
> me to believe a /home2 as you suggest is not necessary since it will
> be bypassed in terms of any installation, which is what I want.
true he went into detail. during install of os, the option of
*custom* allows you to 'slice and dice' a disk into however many
proportions of what ever size you desire.

custom allows creating partitions and setting mount points for _all_
partitions for what ever root path you want. this is how home2 is
how to mount and get /home2.
>> advantages of /home2 is you have a user home directory for all
>> your flavors sitting in 1 partition that will not get erased
>> because you are allocating it's own mount point when you install.
>
> I do not have and do not want one partition for my system (files). I 
> have ONE flavor with many partitions and mount points. A rather "old 
> school" approach that's worked pretty well for me all these years.
i never said you had to use one partition for any files.

multi partitions for / paths is not really "old school". it is a
feature of "custom". you define what each partition is use for.

ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
partition for what ever.


-- 

peace out.

If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
 ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!


in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6

tc,hago.

g
.

On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
> partition for what ever.

that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting 
/usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that 
nowdays.   I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as its 
all too intertwined with root.   the problem with lots of little 
partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.

/home in a dedicated partition, sure. 
/var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz