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

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)
From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:37:28 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20051218133728.GA8888@wonderland.linux.it>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 6592045.1134908805231.JavaMail.root@ps4>
References: <[🔎] 6592045.1134908805231.JavaMail.root@ps4>

On Dec 18, "jdthood@tiscali.nl" <jdthood@tiscali.nl> wrote:

> I have yet to hear any strong reason why we should _not_ implement 
> /run.
> I do not count "It's ugly!" as a strong reason.
It's not needed (since we have /dev/shm/), so it's harmful.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: /run vs /var/run
  - From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>
- Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)
  - From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

References:
- Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)
  - From: "jdthood@tiscali.nl" <jdthood@tiscali.nl>

Prev by Date: Re: xmcd
Next by Date: Re: Size matters. Debian binary package stats
Previous by thread: Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)
Next by thread: Re: /run vs /var/run
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread