On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:25:21AM +0200, Florian Friesdorf wrote:
>
> This posting is rather old, but for completeness:
>
> I needed to put an DPkg:: in front of the lines, to make them work.
actually that is because i left out part of my config file, yours is
correct, but there is another way
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:49:18PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> and add this to your /etc/apt/apt.conf to make the remount automatic
> when you use apt-get to install or upgrade something:
>
> // Auto re-mounting of a readonly /usr
> Pre-Invoke {"mount -o remount,rw /usr";};
> Post-Invoke {"suidre
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:28:33AM -0400, S.Salman Ahmed wrote:
> Another question relating to FS layout and organization: which
> partitions should be mounted NOSUID ? Someone on another (local) mailing
> list recommended that I mount /home NOSUID as a security precaution.
the better question is
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:08:32PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
:On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:07:09PM -0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
:
:> /500M
:
:So much?
Yeh, your right... I'd be comfortable at 250M since /var and /tmp
are split off.
:
:> /usr 5G
:> /usr/local 3G
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:07:09PM -0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
> / 500M
So much?
> /usr 5G
> /usr/local3G
> /var 1.5G (keep cahe/apt/archives there too)
> /tmp 500M
> /home 7G (why mess with /misc too if you're the only user)
I would like
on my systems i dont like more then 120-130MB of swap per physical hd,
more then that(unless the drive is _really_ fast) could drag the system
down real bad. i usually make it a rule for me to include a 128MB swap
partition per hd no matter how much/little ram i have. the box im on now
is 512MB, wi
Hi,
this might be a bit off-topic, but I've read in several manuals that a swap
over 128 MB doesn't make much sense, but I never understood why. Can anyone
enlight me on that?
I'm using 128 MB of RAM and have a 128 MB swap, which is fine, but pretty
soon I'll be putting together a server box
>>"kmself" == kmself writes:
kmself> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:49:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> These are optional.
>> /opt 2048 MB No suid. Place to play with non vendor stuff
kmself> Symlink to /usr/local instead. Simpler space management, fewer
kmself> partitions.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:56:02PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
> Well, I have think the following organization:
>
> / of 100 mb in a primary partition at the beginning of the disk, so
> lilo or grub can boot it.
> /usr of 3 gb (no comments... but should it be bigger?)
> /usr/local of
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:49:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> These are optional.
> /opt 2048 MB No suid. Place to play with non vendor stuff
Symlink to /usr/local instead. Simpler space management, fewer
partitions.
> /var/spool 12 GB No suid This is where my new
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:39:37PM -0600, Dave Thayer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:58:46AM -0400, S.Salman Ahmed wrote:
> > Why would you want to mount /usr read-only ?
>
> In addition to the security issues mentioned by other posters, for
> those of us without a UPS mounting large partiti
"S.Salman Ahmed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "OM" == Olaf Meeuwissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> split /usr amd /usr/local if they're just partitions on the same
> >> drive? > I could see doing that if they were on seperate disks
> >> to gain a little bump > in access spe
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:58:46AM -0400, S.Salman Ahmed wrote:
> Why would you want to mount /usr read-only ?
In addition to the security issues mentioned by other posters, for
those of us without a UPS mounting large partitions r-o can save waiting
for fsck to do its thing after a power flicker
From: "S.Salman Ahmed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem layout and hi everybody
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:58:46 -0400
>>>>> "OM" == Olaf Meeuwissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:58:46AM -0400, S.Salman Ahmed wrote:
> Why would you want to mount /usr read-only ?
A small added measure of security... Prevent accidental deletions...
--
/bin/sh ~/.signature:
Command not found
From: Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gregg C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem layout and hi everybody
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 19:03:28 -0800
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:23PM -0400, Gregg C wrote:
> Why split /usr
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:23PM -0400, Gregg C wrote:
> > Why split /usr amd /usr/local if they're just partitions on the same
> drive?
> > I could see doing that if they were on seperate disks to gain a little
> bump
> > in access speed.
>
> so if
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:23PM -0400, Gregg C wrote:
> Why split /usr amd /usr/local if they're just partitions on the same drive?
> I could see doing that if they were on seperate disks to gain a little bump
> in access speed.
so if you decide to reinstall the OS clean you can run mkfs on /
Why split /usr amd /usr/local if they're just partitions on the same drive?
I could see doing that if they were on seperate disks to gain a little bump
in access speed.
From: "Jonathan D. Proulx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Fil
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:56:02PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
:Well, I have think the following organization:
:
:/ of 100 mb in a primary partition at the beginning of the disk, so
: lilo or grub can boot it.
:/usr of 3 gb (no comments... but should it be bigger?)
:/usr/local of 1,5 gb
Hi,
>>"Juli-Manel" == Juli-Manel Merino Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juli-Manel> I know the answer could differ A LOT from each person, but never
Juli-Manel> mind. I just want oppinions.
Well, here;s my take on the partitioning issue:
/boot32MBGenereally mounted read-on
21 matches
Mail list logo
