On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:27 PM Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > But the main point is, it's fine if you do a custom local setup with > the appropriate local configuration, but then you also need to add the > appropriate config for tmpfiles.d. You can either mask or replace > tmp.conf, simply add your own file as /etc/tmpfiles.d/tmp.conf and it > will have priority, and do what you need for your custom local setup.Oh, ok. I admit I have a traditional unix background where it's common practice to have these a separate real partitions instead. I'll just keep the exception I already made then. I have some users on the system which sometimes store larger things in there.
debian-installer offers a partition setup with separate /home, /var and /tmp very prominently (see attached screenshot).
Whether this is still a good idea nowadays is debatable.As Luca said, if we offer /tmp as a separate partition, it should probably be tmpfs now and not an (ext4/xfs/...) partition.
For reference, I also include the legacy cleanup routine for SysV: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/sysvinit/-/blob/master/debian/src/initscripts/lib/init/bootclean.sh#L119-128So if there should be an exclusion for lost+found (for ext4), there should probably also be exclusion for quota related files.
Whether those exclusions should be shipped directly by systemd or created by d-i (as suggested by Luca on IRC), is something I don't have a strong opinion about. The downside of letting d-i create such a tmpfiles snippet is that we wouldn't cover existing systems.
As for d-i itself, my preferred solution for this would be to change it to uses tmpfs for /tmp.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=245465 (that's an old bug report) Michael
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
