Hi, On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 11:58:39PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > 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 ABC, wholeheartedly. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgpdY5Qmp_Xba.pgp
Description: PGP signature