[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

FHS compliance and UNIX sockets



I'm engaged in a running discussion on the PostgreSQL mailing list about the
location of UNIX sockets.  I moved the PostgreSQL socket from /tmp to 
/var/run/postgresql because of a bug report that tmpreaper was deleting the
socket; in fact FHS conformance would have required it any way, because
FHS 5.10 says that UNIX sockets should be under /var/run:

  "Programs that maintain transient UNIX-domain sockets should place them
   in this directory."

Following a question to me on how Debian regards the use of /tmp by X
for a socket directory, I looked on my system to see what else was violating
policy in this way.

The following non-FHS directories on my running system are used for UNIX
sockets:

Program			Directory		Package

deskguide_applet 	/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-panel
esd 			/tmp/.esd		esound
gmc 			/tmp/orbit-olly		gmc
gnomecal 		/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-pim
gnome-name-service 	/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-bin
gnome-session 		/tmp/.ICE-unix		gnome-session
gnome-terminal 		/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-terminal
nasd 			/tmp/.sockets		nas
panel 			/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-panel
python 			/var/lib/zope/var	zope
ssh-agent 		/tmp/ssh-XXAa2sVx	ssh
syslogd 		/dev/log		msyslog
tasklist_applet 	/tmp/orbit-olly		gnome-panel
xfs 			/tmp/.font-unix		xfs
X 			/tmp/.X11-unix		xserver-common


Are there reasons why these should not be made to conform to the FHS?

Similarly, what should be done about lock files in /tmp that ought to be
under /var/lock?  On my system I have /tmp/.X0-lock.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not."    
                            Proverbs 1:10 




Reply to: