On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:04:16PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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 [blahblahblah] /var/run, being under /var, may be remote and only available later. We want a name for something that cannot be remote and is available, rw, early. The FHS doesn't specify such a name, therefore we must make one. Munging around with /var/run is unnecessarily complicated, buys us _nothing_ but pain, and is probably impossible to do reliably. "/run" is a solution that's easy to handle, easy to convert all existing systems to, easy to describe, reliable, and easily adaptible for admins who want to run their systems differently. 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