On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 21:43, Anil Kumar Sharma wrote:
> > Under Win, almost all programmes can be relocated some way
> after
> > install or by re-installation. Under Linux rigid rule "not
> > relocatable" is prevalent.
>
> What does that mean in relation to files? I've only seen it
> used in terms of libraries where it means it is compiled for
> static linkage.
>
> There is no need to - disturb / play with - the basic requirements of
> a working OS. I would not want to move ../system32 for /usr/sbin older
> again he basics of the objective are clear.
> --
> I do not mean to offend Linux lovers including myself, but kindly be
> generous and sporting.
I just don't understand what you mean by "not relocatable". There
are certain things expected to be in the root partition because
they are needed before additional filesystems are mounted when
the system is booted (/bin, /etc). Other than that, just about
everything could be moved if you wanted, but the usual way of
dealing with a full filesystem is to take one of its large
subdirectories (/var or /home in the case of the root filesystem)
and move the contents to a new partition which is then mounted
back on the original directory. Nothing will notice that
the files have moved and you end up with additional space.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
