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