Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Again, your proposal is fine, but I still think offering a generic ram-based
> > fs is more elegant.
> It is not elegant, it's second-guessing the admin.
emile has been saying that /mem (/ram) does not need to be on a
ramfs/tmpfs filesystem, just that they need to have those qualities
(cleared at reboot) and could easily be placed onto a ramfs at the
admins discretion to minimize disk accesses for laptops and the ilk.
so /mem (/ram) is less about the implementation, and more about the
this makes /mem (/ram) name potentially misleading. using something like
/volatile or /vtl here's one: /tmp/run
/tmp needs to be r/w anyway. /tmp can be implemented in a ramfs, but it
does not need to, and it gets cleaned out at reboot also. so instead of
a /etc/mem.skel you have a /etc/tmp.skel that contains the /tmp/run
prototype that is remade at boot time. the best part: no new top level
directory. is /tmp available early enough? can /tmp be network mounted
for non-diskless systems? any problems with that that i cannot think of
at the moment?
you can include your /tmp/run/preserved also, but that seems more of an
admin thing than an OS thing.