Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:14:59 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, eric@vangyzen.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, matt.thyer@gmail.com Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? Message-ID: <20120330.191459.74671804.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839bF5Q%2BiZ-ExQi8VhpuAmxu%2BXhvZT7hVW35FCFq_V1huA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACM2%2B-7Ahn6J=CTASe0g48%2BSD2vvLVd_hG3DRZmvO31QszG5Xw@mail.gmail.com> <20120330.151848.41706133.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CADLo839bF5Q%2BiZ-ExQi8VhpuAmxu%2BXhvZT7hVW35FCFq_V1huA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > The default should be clear_tmp_enable="YES" > > > if only to uncover those broken configurations that expect /tmp to be > > > persistent. > > > > If you want to break POLA and make a lot of people angry, sure. > > Otherwise no. > > > > I would very much like an example of where /tmp is expected to persist. I don't have any examples of stuff being *dependent* on /tmp being persistent. However, given that it has been persistent with all the FreeBSD installations I have performed since 1995 or so, I would be *highly* surprised if this suddenly changed. POLA. (And these haven't been special installations in any way, just your plain vanilla sysinstall installations with either one / covering the whole disk, or /, /usr and /var on separate partitions.) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120330.191459.74671804.sthaug>