Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
* Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> [030403 08:57]:
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 20:58, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Wasn't the whole point of /run to move the _non_ configuration files
> > out of /etc which only resided there because /etc was the only
> > available writable place?
> No, the point was to isolate run-time state files so that
> they can be put somewhere writable and network-independent
> (so, not in /var), persistent until reboot (so, not in /tmp),
> yet not in / or /etc which some people would like to be on
> read-only filesystems. /etc/run can be a rw filesystem
> even if / and /etc are ro.
If theese things were in /etc by beloning there, the answer
to a ro-/etc-demand would have been "bad luck".
The problem are state (and thus non-configuration) files
in a place where they do not belong to making it impossible
to mount /etc readonly.
> Bernhard R. Link <email@example.com>
> > There is no reason to do half things. If there is a good
> > solution why not implement the good one? Instead of
> > something half?
> I don't see /etc/run as something half. So far as I can
> see it completely meets the need. It has the advantage
> over /run that it won't require FHS politicking. Whether
> it is a more or less nice place to put the new directory
> than /run is a matter of taste.
FHS 2.2 also says mtab has to be in /etc if present. (It
can be read to allow symlinks, though this might still be
violated my making scripts and other things directly to
the new place, and a legacy symlink there should in my eyes
also be removed after some time).
Having /etc/run also contradicts (as the current placement
of mtab and network-state under /etc) the description of
/etc contains configuration files and directories that are specific to
the current system.[footnote 4]
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.