Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:04:16PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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.
/var/run is always available. It may not be the same /var/run, but
that's an entirely separate issue. As long as it points to the same
place, there's no problem.
>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.
/run is a solution that clutters up systems with yet another top level
directory for no good reason. It introduces added complexity for all
users in ensuring that /run is writeable at boot time, while with the
current situation the vast majority of users have a writeable /var/run
which would suffice. Why should all users have to deal with a problem
that only affects a small number of corner cases, when the corner cases
are probably going to have to be special cased anyway?
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org