Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!aicchi!ignatz
From: ignatz@aicchi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: /usr/tmp
Message-ID: <961@aicchi.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 19:52:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: aicchi.961
Posted: Thu Jul  9 19:52:02 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 07:35:56 EDT
References: <431@murphy.UUCP> <6064@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: ignatz@aicchi.UUCP (Ihnat)
Organization: Analysts International Corp; Chicago Branch
Lines: 25
Keywords: /tmp /usr/tmp

There are several reasons to keep both /tmp and /usr/tmp.  First, all programs
that expect one or the other will break.  Period.  And, it not being the
'good old days' of everybody and their dog having a source license, this
would end up causing people just recreating the missing directory.

Another item is to consider another reason there's a /tmp in the first
place.  Often, "/usr" is a separately mounted filesystem.  This means,
of course, that sometimes--usually in single-user mode--somebody--usually,
the administrator--will run the system with some, or all, filesystems
dismounted.  Now, where would they be if all they had was "/usr/tmp" on
a mounted filesystem, which now wasn't?  Ok, you say; put both /tmp and
/usr/tmp on the root filesystem.  Well, you could...but why waste that
much space on the what is usually a fairly static filesystem?  Also, with
the system expecting to use /tmp, and all the rest of the world in /usr/tmp,
when John Q. Bozo uses all the space on the "/usr/tmp" filesystem, the
kernel won't be left out in the cold with the other users...

All in all, then, there are several reasonable arguments for just keeping
the two as is.  If you want to do links and such, fine; but it is something
that you can control locally, and judge the pros and cons of your action.
-- 
	Dave Ihnat
	Analysts International Corporation
	(312) 882-4673
	ihnp4!aicchi!ignatz || ihnp4!homebru!ignatz