| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:19:20 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chvatal@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The only reason why we have this currently in usr is that bsd ports |
| 5 |
> put their stuff in there and I suppose Daniel just did the same. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
>> +1 on /var/cache. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>> Agreed. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>>>Bonus points if we consider suggesting to move it on a dedicated |
| 12 |
>>>file system ^^; |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
/var sounds right but if /usr is still huge it may annoy some (like |
| 15 |
apt can) with smaller drives who now need lots of free space for new |
| 16 |
programs in both /usr and /var. Of course there is LVM. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On OpenBSD the Auto partition map suggests /usr/ports /usr/src as |
| 19 |
seperate partitions as long as you have a fair amount of space. It |
| 20 |
possibly even suggests a seperate obj partition. The benefit being you |
| 21 |
can mkfs/newfs much quicker than deleting many many files. Security (DAC |
| 22 |
permission avoidance) and nuking more than what you wanted obviously |
| 23 |
needs consideration for that kind of function. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So it's probably a user exercise? |
Archives