Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-23 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 20:34 -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008 8:43 AM, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan de Konink wrote: > > ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like > firefox on a > > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very che

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-21 Thread Philip Webb
080121 Caleb Cushing wrote: > last time I checked open office only required ~2GB to compile OO 2.3.1 needed 3,25 GB here, which was less than in the past IIRC. You're correct that that is far more than any other pkg needs. -- ,,==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-21 Thread Caleb Cushing
On Jan 20, 2008 8:43 AM, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan de Konink wrote: > > ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? > not to mention, last time I checked open office only required ~2GB of space

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-21 Thread Duncan
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:05:29 -0500: > another point: i dont think ive ever met anyone who even knew what the > Windows temp directory was or even how to find it. no one relies on > that directory to manage their files.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 08:47 Sun 20 Jan , Richard Freeman wrote: > > Duncan wrote: > >> Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ > >> tmp on tmpfs). How much less obscure can you get than announcing it > >> every time the path is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 08:47 Sun 20 Jan , Richard Freeman wrote: > Duncan wrote: >> Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ >> tmp on tmpfs). How much less obscure can you get than announcing it every >> time the path is referenced or specified? Who could reasonably argue that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-20 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 20-01-2008 08:47:26 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: > You and I know what /tmp is for, but we also know that we shouldn't be > running as root all the time and yet I'm sure there is a note in the > install handbook about that. 95% of new linux users come from Windows, and > as such they have a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-20 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ tmp on tmpfs). How much less obscure can you get than announcing it every time the path is referenced or specified? Who could reasonably argue that tmp doesn't mean tmp? Anybody who comes from the worl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-20 Thread Richard Freeman
Stefan de Konink wrote: ..very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Swap is your friend. The performance hit is the same as what you'd get compiling on disk if pages need to be swapped out. The performance is of cour

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:35PM +, Duncan wrote: > > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > > > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doe

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Duncan
Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:17:55 +0100: > ...very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Well, tmpfs is swap-backed if necessary. That's one of i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner schreef: >> But who compiles firefox? :) Probably everyone that noticed that the segmentation faults coming from the precompiled versions are annoying? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Us

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Alec Warner
On 1/19/08, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Duncan schreef: > > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Ryan Hill
Olivier Galibert wrote: Tmp has never meant "erase at restart", because restarts are often not predictable. Tmp has sometimes meant things like "erased after a week", or "erased when space gets low", but never "erased after restart" which is just unusable. >> POSIX wrote: /tmp A directory

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:35PM +, Duncan wrote: > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doesn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Duncan schreef: > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ > tmp on tmpfs). ...very offtopic bu

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Duncan
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doesn't put anything important in > /tmp - but educating our users befo