From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 18 18:29:13 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FACE1065672;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:29:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@nitro.dk)
Received: from mx.nitro.dk (unknown [77.75.165.90])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E4F8FC08;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:29:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from frankie.nitro.dk (unknown [192.168.3.39])
	by mx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6720F2D4897;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by frankie.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 2000)
	id E1BB8E04B7; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:29:11 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:29:11 +0100
From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org>
To: Daniel Thiele <dthiele@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <20091218182910.GA1309@frankie.nitro.dk>
References: <4B24143E.2060803@gmx.net> <20091212224052.GF1417@arthur.nitro.dk>
	<4B251476.1090303@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B251476.1090303@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, shaun@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Support for geli onetime encryption for /tmp?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:29:13 -0000

On 2009.12.13 17:21:10 +0100, Daniel Thiele wrote:

> Since the tmpmfs option does not scale well with growing /tmp space
> requirements (at least not in a cost-effective way), I am keen to know
> why the patch I dug up in my first mail has never been committed. Was it
> solely a lack of interest or time, or have there been other reasons?

There is no discussion in the audit trail, so I think it's most likely
no committer ever looked that much at it.

I took a brief look, and at the very least the patch is missing an
update to the rc.conf manual page.  I'm not entirely convinced the way
the patch goes about creating the devices etc. is the best way to do
it, but I don't see any obvious problems.

That said, personally I unfortunately have too many other things on my
plate to commit the patch.

-- 
Simon L. Nielsen