On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:38:53PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >and it raises the question of why implementing elaborate, non-portable > >bind mount tricks is preferable over getting the FHS amended. > I still haven't seen a convincing reason why /run is a preferable > default to /var/run in the majority of cases. This is about the namespace, not the storage mechanism. /var is not suitable because while /var is required to allow modifiable files, it's also allowed to be remote. All the scheme proposed to work around this end up being overly complicated and no better than just using /run. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature