Hi, On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:21:33PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:13:39 +0100 > Emile van Bergen <emile-deb@evbergen.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > Filesystem Hierarchy Standard > > > 5.10 /var/run : Run-time variable data > > > This directory contains system information data describing the > > > system since it was booted. Files under this directory should be > > > cleared(removed or truncated as appropriate) at the beginning of the > > > boot process. Programs may have a subdirectory of /var/run; this is > > > encouraged for programs that use more than one run-time file. > > > > Yes, /run is actually a very good alternative. > > > > Perhaps /mem is still more obvious; it also removes the association > > that only running programs have things there. It's likely you wouldn't > > consider (/var)/run immediately for things like ifstate, as you'd feel > > (/var)/run to have a narrower purpose. > > /run is more obvious than /mem to me as its intended use is similar to > /var/run which is clearly defined. That's true, but /mem can be just as clearly defined, as shown earlier. > Without defining /mem to be something like /var/run people may end up > wanting to use it for all sorts ramdisk type stuff. And this is bad why? It's exactly the reason why I'd prefer /mem over /run. If it's /likely/ to be on a ramdisk, it has more uses than a directory that only conforms to the minimum requirements of being writable early and cleared at bootup. /run is just *one* of the things you'd want a /mem for ;-) Especially if part of it (which naturally doesn't include run) can be trivially preserved at shutdown. But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll shut up now. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgpZjJyKdBafq.pgp
Description: PGP signature