On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:10:59AM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > No, but it does make sense to have a tmpfs of which parts are preserved. Depends. If you want to do it for all Debian systems, that'll require patching boot-floppies, doing lots of compatability code to upgrade existing installs without breaking things, and so forth. If you just want to do it for your systems, or even make it an option that people can easily choose at install, that's easier. > > Calling it "/run" allows us to: > > (a) just leave it as a directory on /, presuming / will be mounted > > rw. Simple, obvious, no effort required! > > (b) we can also symlink it to /var/run/early if /var is a local fs > > (c) if someone wants, they can make it tmpfs, or whatever themselves > > Calling it "/mem" would be confusing in either (a) or (b). If someone > > wants to mount /var/run as tmpfs, that's their choice, independent of > > any of this. > Why would you want (b) at all? We don't have tmpfs compiled in, / is read-only. I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: rmdir /run ln -s /var/run/early /run > just have /run as a symlink to /var/run It'd be safer to keep the namespaces separate, IMO. Note that there's nothing stopping *you* from setting up /mem as a tmpfs, and linking /var/run, /var/log, /run and so forth to it, and preserving them on reboot (or backing them up from cron) as you feel appropriate. We could, I think, start using /run today, by: (a) adding it as a directory to sysvinit (b) arranging it to be cleared in early startup scripts Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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!''
Description: PGP signature