On 01:16 Tue 15 Apr , Philip Webb wrote:
> 080414 forgottenwizard wrote:
> > On 03:58 Mon 14 Apr , Philip Webb wrote:
> >> Vim defaults to keeping temporary files in /var/tmp ,
> >> but Mutt defaults to /tmp & Vim called by Mutt does the same.
> >> Recently, I changed the default in .mu
080414 forgottenwizard wrote:
> On 03:58 Mon 14 Apr , Philip Webb wrote:
>> Vim defaults to keeping temporary files in /var/tmp ,
>> but Mutt defaults to /tmp & Vim called by Mutt does the same.
>> Recently, I changed the default in .muttrc to use /var/tmp instead
>> & as a result I can
On 03:58 Mon 14 Apr , Philip Webb wrote:
> 080414 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:36:42 -0400, Steven Lembark wrote:
> >> vi keep their in-work backups there,
> >> loosing the entire contents of /tmp after a crash can be painful.
> > Then they are broken, such data should be sto
On Montag, 14. April 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> vi is a sane program and will in all likelihood respect this
> almost-universal standard. If anyone wants different behaviour (can't
> think why...) then configure vi to use a different directory as a
> scratch pad
it is not sane, but it would be
On Monday 14 April 2008, Steven Lembark wrote:
> > I second that, tmpfs for /tmp is great:
> >
> > tmpfs 512M 12K 512M 1% /tmp
>
> Catch: You loose it all on reboot.
Doesn't matter. The standard definition for /tmp (per FHS) is "contains
files that are not expected to persist
080414 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:36:42 -0400, Steven Lembark wrote:
>> vi keep their in-work backups there,
>> loosing the entire contents of /tmp after a crash can be painful.
> Then they are broken, such data should be stored in /var/tmp.
Vim defaults to keeping temporary fil
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:36:42 -0400, Steven Lembark wrote:
> > I second that, tmpfs for /tmp is great:
> Catch: You loose it all on reboot.
You are supposed to. The LFS says that /tmp is for files that do not need
to survive a reboot. Baselayout now defaults to wiping /tmp at boot
anyway.
> Sinc
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag, 13. April 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:31 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
>>> Due to disk space restrictions I've decided to make /tmp a symlink
>>> to /var/tmp instead of reserving space for both.
>> Why not use tmpfs for /tmp? It
On Sunday 13 April 2008 21:28:22 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag, 13. April 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Why not use tmpfs for /tmp? It usually requires very little space, and
> > will use swap if memory is tight.
>
> I second that, tmpfs for /tmp is great:
>
> tmpfs 512M
On Sonntag, 13. April 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:31 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> > Due to disk space restrictions I've decided to make /tmp a symlink
> > to /var/tmp instead of reserving space for both.
>
> Why not use tmpfs for /tmp? It usually requires very little s
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:38:31 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Due to disk space restrictions I've decided to make /tmp a symlink
> to /var/tmp instead of reserving space for both.
Why not use tmpfs for /tmp? It usually requires very little space, and
will use swap if memory is tight.
--
Neil Bo
> Due to disk space restrictions I've decided to make /tmp a symlink
> to /var/tmp instead of reserving space for both. Maybe it would have
> been wiser to make /tmp a symlink to a dedicated directory in /var/tmp
> but now it's too late.
I'd suggest not symlinking /tmp since it is part of the
sys
Hi list!
Due to disk space restrictions I've decided to make /tmp a symlink
to /var/tmp instead of reserving space for both. Maybe it would have
been wiser to make /tmp a symlink to a dedicated directory in /var/tmp
but now it's too late.
Anyway, now I've found /var/tmp crowded with thousands of
13 matches
Mail list logo
