On Mi, 28 mar 12, 20:47:45, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:55:01 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > On Mi, 28 mar 12, 17:02:23, Camaleón wrote: > > (...) > > >> > but the short version would be "You can't make an omelette without > >> > breaking eggs" > >> > >> Which explains little about your arguments (that's a general stanza) > >> >:-) > > > > Well, so is yours, unless we are talking past each other. I was > > specifically addressing only that paragraph, out of context. > > I didn't know you were interested in my arguments... they can be read > here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/11/msg02155.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/11/msg02207.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/03/msg00280.html We are still talking past each other on this one. Let me try again[1]: I was only disagreeing with you on the rather general statement that defaults should not change when they create problems for users. Nothing more. [1] but I won't be posting anymore on this, it's OT already > > It seems to me you are expecting specific arguments about the /tmp on > > tmpfs issue. As far as I recall you did read through the debian-devel > > discussion(s), what point is there for me to repeat it here (even if my > > memory is faulty and you did not read it)? > > I read the thread it was mentioned when I first asked for feedback, which > was this: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/threads.html#00281 > > But to be sincere, I don't remember "all" of the contents of the posts > nor "who" posted there "what"... and now you tell, I can't see any post > belonging to you in that thread. Maybe you made your comments afterwards? I most probably didn't contribute at all. What for? People more knowledgeable than me and with more real life experience were already debating the issue with interesting arguments for both "sides". > > You expected to be able to uncompress an archive of unspecified size to > > /tmp on a testing system. > > "Unspecified size"? If you did mention a size I must have missed it, sorry for that. > It was just the kernel source (75 MiB). Wow. How. Big. >:-) Since this created problems for you I'm assuming either a small amount of RAM (less than 512 MB?[2]) which points to a lower spec machine that would need special care anyway, or that something else was already hogging /tmp (which kinda' proves Roger's point). [2] 20% of 512 MB is still aprox. 100MB. My laptop is up 2 days and I'am running iceweasel, xxxterm, libreoffice, aptitude, mutt, pidgin, but /tmp usage is still below 1MB (844 KB according to 'df -h'). > > 1. you may have had similar issues uncompressing that on any other > > filesystem (small partition, quota, etc.) > > I doubt it becasue I tend to put special care for that can't happen (my netbook > has a 250 GiB. hard disk with only 2 partitions: /swap (2 GiB) and "/" (the > remaining space). Since I returned "/tmp" to the root filesystem I've had no > more "hiccups". You could have also considered uncompressing the tarball somewhere else, like $HOME/tmp or $HOME/src, but it sure is a valid solution, especially if you often use /tmp for such things and don't care for the potential benefits of the tmpfs approach. > Glad you ask. I already mentioned some points here: Already saw that and I may comment on your suggestions there, because I want to let this sub-thread die. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature