Re: a place for a package directory in root
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
sean finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:26:16PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> sean finney <email@example.com> writes:
>> Some packages chose to place random junk in there (e.g. resolvconf).
>> This is wrong. This location is for (and *only* for) file-backed
>> shared memory storage, otherwise there is potential for namespace
>> clashes, and it's totally disgusting.
>> The fact that it's useful for other things should be an indication
>> that we need another tmpfs mount, mounted elsewhere, rather than
>> abusing a location intended for a specific, unrelated, use.
> so it's a choice between abusing a pre-existing location but standards
> specified for another use, or using a non-existing location with no
> standards whatsover. can't say i really like either option. more
> specifically because both are not addressed in policy/fhs, i'd be worried
> about an in-flow of non-standard, first-come-first-serve namespace
In this case, it looks like we should standardise on something like
/run. Has this been brought up with the FHS/LSB folks? This sounds
like something other distributions will also need to tackle, so if it
gets standardised, so much the better.
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----