Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:22:53 +0900 (JST) From: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <200508060922.j769Mr6r069800@sakura.ninth-nine.com> In-Reply-To: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:59:57 -0700 Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> 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. Cvsup (/usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile) put /var/db/sup. So portsnap should put on /var/db. At least, we should be able to 'mount -ro /usr'. /var/db/portsnap causes a problem to users, ln -s /usr/portsnap /var/db/portnap.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508060922.j769Mr6r069800>