[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: New required package: libblkid1

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> I think /run is stupid.  People who think that /etc should only be
> config files are being just way too anal.

You're entitled to think this, but if you're suggesting a facility
that is to be a standard, I think you should try to accomodate other
people's concerns too, even if you don't entirely buy their argument.

> Why do we really want to separate configuration files such as
> /etc/fstab from files like /etc/mtab?

Because they have different constraints, and sometimes should be
treated differently.  Another reason is that this makes it simpler to
think about what's going on with the system if you can, for instance,
expect that files in /etc will only ever be changed if you do so
yourself; this might a good think for security, etc.

> /run and /etc have to be on the root partition, and the files need to
> be persistent, so it can't be a memory based filesystem.

Really only /etc needs to be available on the root filesystem; /run
(or /var/my-persistant-cache, or whatever it's called) doesn't -- it
can be mounted very early if necessary for special situations.

This means that for e.g., an embedded system, you can put root+/etc in
ROM, use a ram filesystem for /var/run &c (and e.g. use an nvram or
nfs-mounted filesystem for any files that need to be written
persistently as part of system operation).

> Being gratuitously different from other Unix systems just to satisfy
> some abstract principle that /etc "should be configuratoin files
> only" is just an idiotic idea.

I think the idea is (or should be) to act on a good idea, and provide
an example for others to follow later.  Of course, this means it would
be good to get outside feedback (and I think someone's mentioned
pinging the FHS people about any proposed change).

The `gratuitously different' argument is probably the best one against
such changes such as have been proposed recently, but while that's a
good reason to be extra careful, it's _not_ a good reason to simply
drop good ideas.

Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, 
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?

Reply to: