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

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



On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:00:31AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> 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
> properties.

> 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.

Not /tmp -- it's kosher for admin scripts to wipe out /tmp while the
machine is still running.  Losing resolv.conf this way would be a Bad
Thing. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgprDBhdWJZwR.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: