On 2015/06/09 13:03, Kurt Miller wrote: > On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 12:48 -0400, Ian Darwin wrote: > > On 2015-06-09 12:40, trondd wrote: > > > Someone else might have a better idea of what other ports have done > > > but based on Firefox and newer KDE stuff it seems the precedent is to > > > leave the port at the defaults and let it fail. And add a note in > > > pkg-readme with the options available. I'd list the Java options and > > > the ulimit setting and let the person decide how they want to solve > > > it. Then the mailing list can field the complaints of Java apps not > > > starting until the end of time because people don't know about > > > pkg-readmes. :) Tim. > > An FAQ entry in addition? > > I'm leaning towards reducing it. The 'just works' philosophy applies I > think. OpenBSD's ulimits are different then other OS's since our > datasize limit is also effectively our virtual memory limit and since we > randomize mmap's we need to increase it further to have room for > randomization. > > PermGenSize was 96m on 1.7/amd64, so setting CompressedClassSpaceSize to > 256m is a lot larger but not enormous. Very large java application can > add the -XX:CompressedClassSpaceSize= argument. I doubt any of the ports > we have will require this. > > -Kurt >
I think reducing the size is a reasonable approach here, a pkg-readme entry seems good enough as somewhere to explain it, it's the "go-to" place to find important information about running specific ports on OpenBSD, knowing how to find information there is required for all sorts of common things in packages.
