Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
* Thomas Hood <jdthood0@yahoo.co.uk> [030402 19:09]:
> The advantage of /etc/run (or /etc/whatever) over /run is
> that it is compatible with the FHS: the FHS allows new
> subdirectories in /etc but not in /.
This is no point at all. We are about moving files that
are explicitly listed under /etc. And we break what is
expected under /etc (and described under FHS)
There is no reason to do half things. If there is a good
solution why not implement the good one? Instead of
something half?
> The objection was raised that this would make /etc
> heterogeneous in that it would contain both static and
> volatile configuration files.
Whatever is configuration file belongs to /etc. We are
speaking of state-files. There is no reason to put them
under /etc.
> I don't think this is a
> serious problem, however. /etc/run can be a separate and
> different kind of filesystem (e.g., tmpfs).
<sarkasm>
We could also place it under /boot, under /bin or /lib...
</sarkasm>
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: