On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:25:22PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > sean finney <seanius@debian.org> writes: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:26:16PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> sean finney <seanius@debian.org> writes: > >> Some packages chose to place random junk in there (e.g. resolvconf). > >> This is wrong. This location is for (and *only* for) file-backed > >> shared memory storage, otherwise there is potential for namespace > >> clashes, and it's totally disgusting. > >> The fact that it's useful for other things should be an indication > >> that we need another tmpfs mount, mounted elsewhere, rather than > >> abusing a location intended for a specific, unrelated, use. > > so it's a choice between abusing a pre-existing location but standards > > specified for another use, or using a non-existing location with no > > standards whatsover. can't say i really like either option. more > > specifically because both are not addressed in policy/fhs, i'd be worried > > about an in-flow of non-standard, first-come-first-serve namespace > > usage. > In this case, it looks like we should standardise on something like > /run. Has this been brought up with the FHS/LSB folks? This sounds > like something other distributions will also need to tackle, so if it > gets standardised, so much the better. It has not; I had intended to do so, but there was some resistance to teh idea on debian-devel and the use cases disappeared into /dev/shm, so I occupied myself with other things. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature