Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:22:33 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050806092232.GA850@zaphod.nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2005.08.06 01:59:57 -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > Portsnap keeps a compressed snapshot of the ports tree, requiring > roughly 50MB and 13000 inodes. The "natural" place for this to go > would be in /var/db/, but I suspect that this would cause problems > for many users, particularly when it comes to the number of inodes. > > Is this a reasonable excuse for violating hier(7) and putting the > compressed snapshot into /usr/portsnap? For reference, the port keeps > the snapshot in /usr/local/portsnap. Wouldn't it make sense to put in on /var, and if people do not have enough space there, they can just symlink the portsnap directory to a location that has enough space? -- Simon L. Nielsen [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFC9IFYh9pcDSc1mlERAlxeAKCYtZBfomQibSPqvsQvqn3ajZpAhQCfd1tJ sDcRwodITmmz/DQSCsujY60= =Rz/x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050806092232.GA850>