[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

/run and read-only /etc



Was: "ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?"

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

Work can be done to make it easier to mount / or /etc
read-only without deciding this question.  Only a few
programs need to use the new "run" directory.

We should avoid C.  We can proceed with A on the understanding
that we may be forced to revert to B later.

Summary
=======
Wishes filed or updated
  * sysvinit
       #150355: Move /etc/motd under /var
  * util-linux
       #156489: Move /etc/adjtime under /var/lib
  * ifupdown
       #84074: Store ifstate under /run
  * ppp
       #187756: Do not treat non-writable /etc/ppp/resolv.conf as error
  * pppconfig
       #187810: /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/0dns-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down.d/0dns-down:
         Don't create temporary files in /etc
       #187651: Document how not to futz with /etc/resolv.conf
  * linuxlogo
       #187953: Move /etc/linuxlogo* under /var
  * cupsys
       #187954: Move /etc/printcap.cups under /var
Wishes to be filed (by Jamie Wilkinson)
  * base-files
      Add /run directory
  * pam, shadow
      Allow either /etc/nologin or /run/nologin to prevent non-root logins
  * sysvinit:
      Touch /run/nologin (not /etc/nologin) when there is a delay
      before a shutdown.
  * util-linux
      Use /run/mtab for mount's statefile
TODO
  * There should be some way of configuring named forwarders
    without modifying /etc/bind/named.conf*.  Should the
    named.conf.options file be stored under /var/lib?  Or
    is there a cleaner solution?
  * There should be some way of configuring mail relays
    without modifying /etc/postfix/main.cf etc.
  * dhclient -- Anthony DeRobertis: What needs to be done here?
TODO later
  * sysvinit
      Add support for mounting / read-only.
      Add support for mounting /run as a separate filesystem.
      The patches in #30446 and #186892 should be reviewed
      in implementing this.


-- 

Thomas Hood <jdthood0@yahoo.co.uk>



Reply to: