> Thanks for the responses - this group is great.
> If I'd made /usr/local its own slice - would I have avoided this? Or is
> the shared /usr fs recursive across slices?
Not if you mount /usr/local in the global zone. If you allocate a slice
or softpartition or whatever for every zone's /usr/local, and mount
this /usr/local as part of the zone's configuration, it will be rw to
Quote:> If /usr/local were it's own slice, would I even see it in my non-global
Quote:> Would it be writeable per zone? If not, is there a way to make it so,
> like /etc is?
No, if you make /usr/local a filesystem/slice mounted in the global zone,
it'll be ro in any non-global zone as it's below /usr. To have /usr/local
be writable for a zone you need to define it as a filesystem local to
to zone only (in de zone's config).
> Maybe it's better to install from source, installing to writable
> locations, or use packages which follow the convention Scott mentions?
> Though most software I install goes in /usr/local by default!
> Are Klaus and Rodrick's suggestions along the lines of what Scott
> refers to as creating a "whole-root" non-global zone? I'd like to save
> disk space, and keep packages more or less in-sync across zones, so
> maybe sharing as much as possible is still better for me?
If lots of you software installs in /usr/local/bin and you want to
share that from the global to all local zones, but you want to be
able have separate configs per zone, I'd try to make a filesystem/slice
in each zone for /usr/local/etc. So the software installs in
/usr/local/bin and is shared because /usr is inherited, but to configs
are in /usr/local/etc which is a separate filesystem in each zone.