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

Re: a place for a package directory in root

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:25:22PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> sean finney <seanius@debian.org> writes:

> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:26:16PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> sean finney <seanius@debian.org> 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
> > usage.

> 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.

It has not; I had intended to do so, but there was some resistance to
teh idea on debian-devel and the use cases disappeared into /dev/shm, so
I occupied myself with other things.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: