Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:24:58PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 14:30, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > - need shared memory? use /dev/shm
> > - need to put info somewhere that doesn't have to be kept between
> > boots? /var/run
> > - same but need it before /var is mounted? /run
> > - same but need it even when / is read-only ? /run, setup by the
> > sysadmin to be on a tmpfs
>
> Are there any objections to symlinking /var/run to /run
> (unless /var/run is already a rw, persistent, and non-network-
> mounted directory)?
>
> Advantages:
> * One path /var/run to all runtime state files -- no need to
> attend to how early in the boot sequence the file is used
This makes sense. But I don't think it would be meaningful unless we
decide /run is a replacement for /var/run. They're not really the same
afterall.
> * No need to move files currently in /var/run to /run
No need anyway to do this, if the /var/run definition remains the same
(which seems to be the consensus appearing). Files that need /run will
be moved from their current, dirty location. Files that need /var/run
just won't move.
On the other hand, linking /var/run to /run may be a meaningful decision
(just as symlinking /usr to .) The /run definition may take this into
account and say that it _may_ also hold the contents of /var/run, and
the two namespaces must'nt clash.
> * No need to amend FHS
I think adding /run, wether /var/run is a symlink to it or not, need an
amendement to the FHS someday.
--
Jeremie Koenig <sprite@sprite.fr.eu.org>
Reply to: