On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:10:39PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 10:51, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > 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. > If I understand correctly, your two issues are: > (1) that state files are not configuration files and > so do not belong under /etc; (2) the presence of state > files in /etc/makes it impossible to mount /etc readonly. > 1. On what grounds to you assert that state files don't > "belong" under /etc? You quote the FHS: > > /etc contains configuration files and directories that > > are specific to the current system. [FHS 3.4] > The proposed /etc/run is a directory specific to the > current system, so it seems to meet the stated criterion. This is not how I understand the description. I understand it to mean "/etc contains configuration files and directories [containing configuration files] that are specific to the current system." Your reading implies that it's ok to throw any old system-specific crap into a subdirectory of /etc, and still be FHS-compliant. > I think you are drawing a distinction between "configuration" > and "state" files that is sharper than intended by the FHS > (... otherwise mtab wouldn't be in there), and also > sharper than can easily be drawn in practice. E.g., is > resolv.conf a configuration file or a state file? No, mtab is there for historical reasons. It's a singular taxonomic wart that, unlike most other historical baggage, no one saw fit to address during the process of the FHS's formulation. In part, I think this is because people have been symlinking /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts, but this fix has its limitations. In a sense, this is not so much a case of the FHS saying mtab belongs in /etc, as it is that the FHS saying it doesn't belong in any of the other directories currently available. > 2. The writability issue is taken care of by moving the > state files under a subdirectory of /etc which can be > used as the mount point for a rw filesystem if /etc is > on a ro filesystem. The FHS is about more than just providing a system that technically allows you to mount different filesystems as needed. There are also aesthetic concerns in the heirarchy (in the broad sense of creating a system which follows a set of simple principles), and I believe /etc/run violates that aesthetic whereas /run does not. But while I disagree with your arguments and felt they warranted a rebuttal, for reasons previously explained I do not oppose moving forward with an /etc/volatile or /etc/run directory as an interim solution. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpmai3Ueocpi.pgp
Description: PGP signature