Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Jeremie Koenig <email@example.com> writes:
> This is more about the "/mem or /run" question. IMHO, it would be
> meaningful just to move volatile data from /var into something else
> (let's say /vlt). We would move /var/lock and /var/run to /vlt/lock and
> /vlt/run. Symlink old ones to new ones.
> The very nature of this directory would allow us to require it being
> available at boot : it's small and doesn't need persistance across
> reboots. Let it on the root if you don't bother. Make a small disk
> partition if you want / ro. Use a tmpfs if you're diskless.
> The boot sequence would be something like :
> E: /vlt, in fstab
> 1. check root fs and mount -o remount /, possibly rw
> 2. grep /vlt /etc/fstab && mount /vlt
> 3. rm -rf /vlt/* ; cp -a /etc/vlt/* /vlt
> 4. remount / and /vlt, or just cp /proc/mounts /vlt/run/mtab
> (alternatilvely, if no symlinks are needed in /etc/vlt,
> cp --preserve=mode,ownership at 3., and don't do anything at 4., and
> have /etc/vlt/run/mtab -> /proc/mounts.)
> I think all this stuff would be a good compromise between just /run, and
> some for-everything /mem. It splits /var in a logical way, that enables
> us solving our problems... If you're not conservative at all, you can
> move /tmp to /vlt/tmp (which would be just logical), and then you've not
> increased the count of top level directories, you've even eliminated the
> "limited" scope of /tmp.
Doesn't matter if its called /mem, /run, /vlt. I would like to
preserve the possibility to have just one writeable filesystem. So
/vlt and /var should be allowed to be the same fs. So it would be:
3. rm -rf /vlt/run /vlt/lock; cp -a /etc/vlt/* /vlt