On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:04:16PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:38:53PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I still haven't seen a convincing reason why /run is a preferable
> >> default to /var/run in the majority of cases.=20
> >This is about the namespace, not the storage mechanism. /var is not
> >suitable because while /var is required to allow modifiable files, it's
> >also allowed to be remote. All the scheme proposed to work around this
> >end up being overly complicated and no better than just using /run.
> Why is ensuring that /var/run [blahblahblah]
/var/run, being under /var, may be remote and only available later. We
want a name for something that cannot be remote and is available, rw,
early. The FHS doesn't specify such a name, therefore we must make one.
Munging around with /var/run is unnecessarily complicated, buys us
_nothing_ but pain, and is probably impossible to do reliably. "/run"
is a solution that's easy to handle, easy to convert all existing systems
to, easy to describe, reliable, and easily adaptible for admins who want
to run their systems differently.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpMcwKtKkqmD.pgp
Description: PGP signature