Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:01:49 +0200 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> Cc: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Portsnap is now in the base system Message-ID: <42F88D1D.9070303@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1123584740.779.5.camel@spirit> References: <42F871B4.6000703@freebsd.org> <200508091737.23443.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <42F888AD.8070604@FreeBSD.org> <1123584740.779.5.camel@spirit>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig2F6C14A6DB4919A4AE6ECF35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xin LI wrote: > Hi, >=20 > =E5=9C=A8 2005-08-09=E4=BA=8C=E7=9A=84 12:42 +0200=EF=BC=8CFlorent Thou= mie=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > [snip] >=20 >> Default /var size will be bumped. If you're not doing a fresh >=20 >=20 > While we seems not going to MFC portsnap on 6.0, will it be reasonable > to bump the default /var value in 6.0-RELEASE so our users won't be > surprised when they upgrade to 6.1? >=20 > Just my 0.02 Yuan :-) I'm not sure most users will upgrade to 6.0, even if we claim it's stable technology, but I'd second this idea. --=20 Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --------------enig2F6C14A6DB4919A4AE6ECF35 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC+I0jMxEkbVFH3PQRAuovAJ9WN3P+7EDu94lfeeM7WtRWjG7vZwCdGDTn ACFaNqv/y0RyxoZT1tMp7zg= =SczV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig2F6C14A6DB4919A4AE6ECF35--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F88D1D.9070303>