Re: /run/, resolvconf and read-only root
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 15:13, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> I think it should be possible for any program that writes to /etc (it it
> cannot use /var) either to be configurable to store it's data somewhere
> else or use a symlink to store the data somwhere else (e.g. /proc/flashrom
> or /nfsmounteddiskbutnotroot or other unusual place). I think that should
> be the first step in tris transition.
Would you find /etc/run/ more acceptable?
> I haven't seen a very good description of /run yet and I'm not completely
> sure that something like "a place to write files to when you can't write
> to /var yet" is useful. This is not a useful description because /var may
> be mounted at different times on different systems (e.g. nfs mounted /var
> vs localy mounted /var).
The description does not have to be much more specific than
that in order to guarantee that /run/ solves the problem,
which is that there are certain programs pre-required for
networking which, ipso facto, cannot use network-mounted
filesystems to store their state.
Is /run/ "useful"? It solves the problem.
Of course, it is not the only possible solution to the problem.
If you wish, you can regard /run/ as an interim solution, to
be used until such time as programs are rewritten to make
/run/ no longer necessary.
--
Thomas Hood <jdthood0@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply to: