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

Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:09:05PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:

> [Thomas Hood]
> > After installation you should have a tmpfs mounted on /run.  This has
> > been created for the use of that handful of packages that need a
> > place to store run time state files independently of networking.

> Given the need, and now the reality, of /run, is there any need for a
> separate /var/run?  I vote we migrate to /var/run -> /run, at least in
> the default install.  Whether packages should continue to refer to
> /var/run is a matter of FHS touchy feely, and perhaps compatibility
> with other FHS distributions is more important than the ability to
> eliminate the /var/run symlink in the long run.

Given the reality of /lib, is there any need for a separate /usr/lib?

The principle is the same: /lib is used only for the minimal system required
for booting, and everything else should go in /usr/lib.  /run should be used
only for junk that needs to be stored early in the boot sequence, and
everything else should go in /var/run.

We should *not* be moving all of /var/run into /run; symlinking the former
to the latter should be left as a touchy feely exercise for the local admin.

(We also shouldn't need to specify a policy for mounting any particular
filesystem on /run, but merely mount /run early iff it's present in
/etc/fstab and leave the implementation details to the local admin.)

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: