Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I do not remember a consensus about this.
Perhaps the last hold-outs can be convinced this time? :)
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> and if it is placed in a tmpfs (which is really the best thing
> it doesnt matter under which mountpoint it is located.
It does matter, because /run needs to be usable before other
are mounted, and a filesystem can get mounted on /var, thus hiding
anything that was stored at /var/run prior to this. One might propose
shifting things around, but this quickly gets into race problems.
> And then it is much cleaner to have only one.
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Given the need, and now the reality, of /run, is there any need for
> separate /var/run?
"Need" is probably too strong, but it's certainly convenient if we
have to change the way we currently use /var/run/.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> (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
I think that packages Depending on initscripts >= 2.86.ds1-7 should be
entitled to assume that /run/* is a writable location available very
after boot. Initscripts 2.86.ds1-7 includes /run and mountvirtfs
tmpfs on it, thus causing this assumption to be true. If the local
wants something else then he or she can edit the script in such a way
the aforementioned assumption remains true. If there is demand for an
alternative standard operation mode that satisfies the assumption then
that can be implemented, of course, but offhand I can't think of why
anyone would need anything but the default configuration.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Has anyone talked to the FHS guys about this?
Yes, I have talked to them about it and there is no objection.
I think I have read all the discussions of this issue in the archives
I have yet to hear any strong reason why we should _not_ implement
I do not count "It's ugly!" as a strong reason.
Background information at: