On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 12:27:54AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > Is it a lot of work to implement /run? > If it was not a lot of work then it would have been done without such a long > discussion. What makes you think that? Implementing /run means having some packages make the directory, and pointing the handful of packages that write to /etc at /run instead. Other complications, like letting /run be an in-memory fs or something are easily handled by the admin. > Things to do: > 1) Change programs such as mount. s,/etc/,/run/,g > 2) Solve issues of supporting different kernels (2.2.x doesn't have tmpfs). tmpfs isn't required: you can just use a local partition, or, if your / is rw, leave it on /. This is easily left to the admin. > 3) Convince the FHS people (as if that's ever going to happen). This can't possibly happen until after we've started using /run, so isn't relevant. > 4) Change all applications that write to /etc and put in sym-links for > applications that read from it (*). See (1). > (*) A short list for 4 is: > mount > sendmail daemon > sendmail -t run by the user for some mail servers > Various daemon start scripts. > ntpd > hotplug > passwd/chfn/chsh/etc > useradd/userdel/etc > samba > Some file system administrative programs. Eh? passwd and useradd are part of the admin's toolset; if they need to write to /etc (rather than using ldap or similar), the admin needs to remount / rw. This is exactly the same as needing to mount / rw when running apt-get and dpkg. > The problems don't end here however. Oh, no, the sky is falling! Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature