/usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap

[Scott Long]

Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> 
>>I don't really think that is a big problem, especially if the default
>>/var size is increased so it doesn't happen to total novices using
>>default install.
>>
>>If it turns out the be a problem, I think it would be better to have
>>portsnap warn the users when /var runs full e.g. with a URL to the FAQ
>>that describes how to work around the problem.
> 
> 
> I think we bought the /var size problem years ago, whenever the first
> use of /var/db was made.  I don't think portsnap is going to be the
> make-or-break deal that having e.g. the default mysql location is --
> certainly not enough to break with this standard usage.
> 
> Now, whether we can do a better job with the defaults, and educating
> users, is another story :)
> 
> mcl

We are already in agreement that the default size of /var will grow in
sysinstall, the only thing left is deciding if it should grow for future
use also (i.e. make it big enough to actually hold a crashdump).

I think that portsnap is a very good feature and I'm ready to tout it
for the 6.0 release.  The technical problems, such as they are, are
pretty insignificant and are just about solved.

I think that we are pretty darn lucky to have someone with both the
skills and motivation working on adding features that benefit our
users.

Scott