Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:30:03 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807173003.GA7290@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20050807115927.GA851@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <20050806092232.GA850@zaphod.nitro.dk> <42F489DC.1080400@freebsd.org> <20050807115927.GA851@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > I don't really think that is a big problem, especially if the default > /var size is increased so it doesn't happen to total novices using > default install. > > If it turns out the be a problem, I think it would be better to have > portsnap warn the users when /var runs full e.g. with a URL to the FAQ > that describes how to work around the problem. I think we bought the /var size problem years ago, whenever the first use of /var/db was made. I don't think portsnap is going to be the make-or-break deal that having e.g. the default mysql location is -- certainly not enough to break with this standard usage. Now, whether we can do a better job with the defaults, and educating users, is another story :) mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807173003.GA7290>