[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: how to increase space for tmpfs /tmp

On Mi, 28 mar 12, 15:12:19, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:50:50 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Ma, 27 mar 12, 14:58:52, Camaleón wrote:
> >> 
> >> IMO, the rule of thumb for applying a new default is asking ourselves
> >> if the new default will cause any problem to the users. If yes, then
> >> don't touch the old default and keep it the way it was.
> > 
> > I don't agree.
> For any specific reason or just "don't agree" for the sake of not 
> agreeing? I'll be glad to hear your arguments on this :-)

I thought I did below ;) but the short version would be
"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
> >> If we are not going to get any improvement but just for the 10% of our
> >> user-base, then we are failing the 90% of the rest.
> > 
> > The improvement long term *could* be valuable enough to justify the
> > pain. The correct way is usually not the easy way.
> And what (or who) decides what is "correct"? 

I think there is no correct answer that would apply anywhere[1]. It just 
happen that I agree with (most) of the choices taken by Debian and I say 
this by having followed all major discussions on -devel, -project and a 
few other mailing lists for several years now.

[1] except 42, of course :p

> I've just seen another thread at this mailing list where "another" user 
> has been hit by this "correct" default. I don't mean that having "/tmp" 
> mounted as "tmpfs" is not correct but the default is clearly not suited 
> to many of the users as you can see.

As far as I can tell /tmp as tmpfs is in testing since a few months and 
in unstable even longer. In my very humble opinion two threads in this 
period is hardly enough to call it "not suited to many of the users".

> > One of the big reasons I love Debian is because it is not afraid to
> > choose the hard path[1] when the long term benefits are worth it.
> (...)
> Although that's your personal opinion as you can easily understand it has 
> nothing to do with the issue we are currently debating. Every user can/do 
> love Debian for their own/different reasons but none of our personal 
> reasons can be used as arguments to make changes in the defaul settings, 

I wasn't trying to use personal reasons as arguments, I was just trying 
to suggest that popularity or ease of implementation (or whatever) of a 
decision does not necessarily imply correctness and Debian has had the 
courage to make unpopular decisions or choose the harder to implement 
solution when it thought it was necessary.

I just happen to respect this in general, regardless if the decision 
proves to be "good" or "wrong".

> unless there's a strong technical reason that proves they're the right 
> thing to do, which I still don't see for this specific issue.

Well, isn't this your personal opinion (that there is no strong 
technical reason)? :)

Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: