Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:
>> > > Why waste time looking at the rest of the detail...
>> >
>> > because someone might have made a typo?
>> So? He corrected it, and we go on from there...
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html

"Goodwin's Law"????

That web page has far more than just the wrong word...

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote in message news:<slrncmvss6.6ok8.syl@alcor.concordia.ca>...
> Mikhail Zotov wrote:
>
> > I find it useful to have /tmp on a separate partition (especially
> > in a multi-user environment) since some programs create lots of
> > temporary files. Still, there is also /var/tmp, which is world
> > writable and thus can also overfill the root partition under some
> > circumstances. Surely, one can place /var/tmp on a separate
> > partition, too. But the number of partitions then seems to grow
> > too much (just MHO). The only idea that comes to my mind is to
> >
> > # rmdir /var/tmp
> > # ln -sf /var/tmp /tmp
>
> That will leave you with a dangling symlink: /tmp/tmp
>
> What you *meant* to write was:
>
> rmdir /var/tmp
> ln -s ../tmp /var
>

Yeah, you are right!! Thank you! (I wonder that you are the only
one who noticed my mistake :-))


> (Note that the relative path makes it possible to mount the disk on
> another system, perhaps for maintenance, repair, upgrade, forensics,
> or whatever other reason, and still get the expected result)
>
> > Does anyone know about possible drawbacks of this solution?
>
> None to my knowledge. I've been doing it for years.
>
> Others have pointed out that it's probably more common practice to have
> /tmp symlink to /var/tmp, which I've also done (on non-Linux systems)
> for years, but I prefer the separate /tmp: I don't need to backup /tmp,
> but I do want to backup /var (mail and printer spools, system logs, etc)

And /var/cache/fonts ? ;-)

Anyway, thank you very much for you clear and concise answer.
I think I understand the situation much better now.

Regards,
Mikhail

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<slrncmuvm2.9m.joostkremers@j.kremers4.news.a rnhem.chello.nl>...
> Jeffrey Froman wrote:
> > Seems like a fine idea to me, though I've never tried it myself. I'll point
> > out though that /var/log and /var/spool can fill up as well. My philosophy
> > is that when it makes sense to have /tmp on a separate partition, it makes
> > just as much sense to have /var on one too.
>
> yeah. isn't the more common solution to put /var on a separate partition
> and symlink /tmp to /var/tmp?

Nothing is common in the windoops environment I have here
Still, thanks for the idea! I have implemented it.

Regards,
Mikhail

Mikhail Zotov wrote:

> Yeah, you are right!! Thank you! (I wonder that you are the only
> one who noticed my mistake :-))

So did I actually, but let's just carry on believing that everyone had
interpretted what you meant, not what you actually wrote. :-)

> Anyway, thank you very much for you clear and concise answer.

You're welcome. I'm glad to have helped.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------