[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?



Hi,

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:49:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:17:07AM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > True. The same goes for /mem though, and because it's a bit broader than
> > /run, I still think it's named more appropriately.
> 
> "/mem" implies it's going to be in memory, just like "shm" implies
> it's for shared memory. We don't have /nfs, or /disk. Not that "usr" or
> "etc" are particularly descriptive, but at least they're not actively
> misleading.

Well, I stipulate that /mem will be in memory in 90 % of the cases if
implemented, and exhibit memory-fs-like qualities in 100 % (gone at
reboot, except for an explicitly preserved part).

So actively misleading goes a bit far ;-)

> /mem is a great name for something the sysadmin sets up, and then points
> things at; but it's a bad name for apps to use to get at their data.

Most apps would continue to use /var/run, which would be a symlink to
/mem/run on systems that have /mem. Only things that need writable
storage before /var is available need /mem as a hardcoded path directly;
other apps that /like/ to store their files in memory but do not
/require/ it can also use /mem.

> "/early" perhaps? "/etc/early-var" ? (The latter being a configuration
> option indicating where to put variable data that's needed early in the
> boot process; in the form of a symlink)

Yes, or /volatile, as the most prominent requirement other than it being
writable early is that it's empty after a reboot.

Cheers,


Emile.

-- 
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen           emile@e-advies.nl      
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153           http://www.e-advies.nl    

Attachment: pgpALcoqHNlhs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: