Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?

[Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>]

Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 
>  Steve Langasek wrote:
>  > 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.
> 
>  I think this is the key paragraph here, as well as Thomas' (^H^H
>  Hood's) main point.
>  Maybe the justification should just be "Things that ended up in etc
>  for historic reasons but which should be in something ending in run".
>  As Thomas and yourself have pointed out, it's a interim solution and
>  compromise.
>  One might add that it's probably a better starting point to do start
>  FHS lobbying for /run than the present situation by clearly pointing
>  out the scope and proving feasibility.

Exactly. Personnaly I am neutral about the directory but I want things
to move on instead of getting stalled. Thomas Hood proposal seems the
most reasonnable compromise so far.

It is a bit a Condorcet vote situation with the ballot

A [ ] /run
B [ ] /etc/run
C [ ] do nothing

Steve has say he would vote ABC, I would probably vote BAC,
but what is important is to me is to defeat the C option.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>