Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:38:53PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I still haven't seen a convincing reason why /run is a preferable
>> default to /var/run in the majority of cases.=20
>
>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.
Why is ensuring that /var/run is always a symlink to somewhere writeable
if /var is unavailable early on overly complicated? You don't want
/var/run to be shared between multiple hosts anyway, which is the most
likely case if /var is remote.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: