Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
>> On 17 Mar 2003 07:49:22 +0100,
>> Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 05:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Providing such a guarantee is the point of standardizing on /run
>> (and leaving the implementation details -- physical vs. in-memory
>> -- to the local admin).
> If a consensus is emerging that /run is needed, what's the next
> step? Amending policy to allow for the directory (currently
> forbidden by FHS)?
No, getting a working implementation going and ironing out
the kinks, _then_ amending policy after we get things working
satisfactorily. Policy merely documents current practice; packages
at the bleeding edge can (and should) get ahead of policy while
current practice is being moulded.
"He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one
verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there
is a certain pleasure in contemplating the wailing and gnashing of
teeth, or else it would not occur so often." Bertrand Russell, "Why I
Am Not a Christian"
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C