On Vi, 30 mar 12, 14:44:37, Paul E Condon wrote: > > No. You misunderstand me. There is a new extra requirement on TMPDIR, a > restriction on ones choise of its value. A directory entry on a disk > file system is not enough. It must be a directory entry that has a line > in /etc/fstab that enables its use as a mount point to real separate > partition. At least that is the way it is now. If this restriction were > removed by some change in the implementation that I know not how to do... > then your suggestion would likely work and the old way of using /tmp > would also work. I really have no idea what you are talking about, but there is no new requirement on TMPDIR. > In UNIX all directories are files ... special files that serve a > special system defined function, but files in the sense that they are > not inodes, or sectors, or blocks, etc. Linux follows UNIX on this > innovation of long ago. From this point of view, sure, but this is not what I was talking about. > > Err... your original /tmp is a directory on / not a file[1] and if you > > don't mount anything there your system will happily use the available > > space on / (the root partition). > > > > [1] unless you had a dedicated partition, but AFAIK in such a case you > > wouldn't get a tmpfs anyway > > I don't know why I get a tmpfs. I didn't ask for it. I have supposed > it came with a new way of doing file handling in the system software, > part of a new implementation that was supposed to be a work-alike > replacement of the previous version. /tmp on tmpfs has been optional before, it's just that the initscript maintainers decided to make it default. > I never had a dedicated partion for /tmp and now it is required. That, > to me, is a change. I fixed it when I learned that it is now required, > and I think it would be nice to go back to the old way because the old > way did not require a separate partition. But I repeat myself. Enough. > What happens will happen. There is no *requirement* for /tmp to be a separate partition. I really don't understand how you came to this conclusion. > > P.S. I accidentally did some re-wrapping, how long do you set your > > lines? > The default in mutt, whatever that is. I like defaults. That is the > main thing that originally attracted me to Debian. It offered defaults > that worked. Mutt uses an external editor for writing e-mails ,----[ man muttrc ] | editor | Type: path | Default: “” | | This variable specifies which editor is used by mutt. It defaults to the | value of the $VISUAL, or $EDITOR, environment variable, or to the | string “/usr/bin/editor” if neither of those are set. `---- 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