Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
"Marco d'Itri" <md@Linux.IT> writes:
> On Mar 17, Thomas Hood <email@example.com> wrote:
> >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)?
> I do not think there is such a consensus.
> Many people pointed that after teaching programs like mount to follow
> symlinks the problem can easily be solved by the local admin.
No it can't and mount already follows symlinks. Thats why linking to
/proc/mounts works unless you need the extra infos for loopback or
quota thats stored only in a normal /etc/mtab.
Anyway, the problem remains that you need a palce to write data at a
time when there is no place to write to. No matter where you say it
should go to you first need to make something writeable.
I don't like the idea of a ramdisk because its eigther too smal or to
big but never right sized. tmpfs might be suitable but you have to
adapt software to utilize the place where its mounted or to correctly
function with symlinks to there.
Providing a state fs that you mount in place of a file would solve all
the problems without any change in userspace software. I think thats
still the best aproach.