/usr/opt instead of /opt?

[Omer Zak]

On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 10:31 +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:

> Note that /opt is intended for software (and data) that is not a part
> of the system/distro, is installed in a non-standard way, etc. This is
> something you may want to keep intact, e.g., when you upgrade the base
> system.

What, then, is the difference between /opt and /usr/local?

> You could mount an add-on partition as /usr/opt, of course, but what
> would be the point in the context of your question? It is actually
> more logical to have /opt than /usr/opt.
> 
> It is not clear to me what your partition scheme is. On the one hand,
> you say that /opt is a part of /, on the other hand, it sounds like
> you mounted /usr sepaately, not as a part of /. It is possible, of
> course, though not very frequent - I'd say the opposite is more
> common.

My partitioning scheme is as follows:
/boot - in a separate physical partition
All the following are logical volumes in an encrypted volume group:
/ - root and everything else (including /etc and /opt)
/tmp
/usr
/var
/home

My goal is to prevent exhaustion of inodes or blocks in one partition
from bringing the whole system down.  Hence the separation
between /tmp,/var and the other partitions.

Is there a system of per-directory quotas for limiting the resources
occupied by any directory?  If yes, it could replace partitioning the 

--- Omer


-- 
In civilized societies, captions are as important in movies as
soundtracks, professional photography and expert editing.
My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html