Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap
From: Peter Jeremy (PeterJeremy_at_optushome.com.au)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:21:18 +1000 To: Colin Percival <email@example.com>
On Sat, 2005-Aug-06 01:59:57 -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
>I'm going to be bringing portsnap into the base system very soon, and
>roughly 50MB and 13000 inodes. The "natural" place for this to go
>would be in /var/db/, but I suspect that this would cause problems
>for many users, particularly when it comes to the number of inodes.
The number of inodes does seem rather high (I gather it's one per
port). Have you considered using an alternative mechanism to store
the data? ar(1), dbm(3) and zip(1) would all seem possible options
(though zip isn't in the base system). The downside is that updating
would be far more expensive in disk space.
>Is this a reasonable excuse for violating hier(7) and putting the
>compressed snapshot into /usr/portsnap? For reference, the port keeps
>the snapshot in /usr/local/portsnap.
I think it would be nicer to have it in /var. I suspect that that
many inodes may present problems for some people whereever you put it.
Maybe you need to make the location an option (either compile time or
in a configuration file)
-- Peter Jeremy _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"