Re: /run and read-only /etc
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:30, email@example.com wrote:
> I don't like the idea of having multiple files to turn off logins. (I
> can't log into my system, and /etc/nologin doesn't exist! What? didn't you
> know about this *other* file?) I also don't want to solve this with a
Yes, let's try to depend as little as possible on symlink solutions.
It seems reasonable to me that if logins can be locked out either
variably (by a program) or non-variably (by the administrator) --
each way independently of the other -- then each should have its
own "key" to the lock. Of course there are many ways to
implement a shared lock.
> I would favor (even though it's weird from the pan-unix admin point of
> view) just deprecating /etc/nologin in favor of something more "sensible".
So you would prefer it if /etc/nologin were simply replaced by,
> It would also be nice to have some blessing of /run in the policy first,
> but that doesn't seem terribly likely.
What is more important for now is whether there is broad enough
agreement with the reasoning behind /run/.
> These are not strongly held positions. Please do try to convince me to be
> less of an obstruction
I don't have strong views about the fate of nologin either...
except that it should not be in /etc. Perhaps Jamie Wilkinson will
have more to say on this subject.
Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org>