Re: /run vs /var/run
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> 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.
It is certainly needed.
How strongly can I put this? /dev/shm is for *shared memory*, not for
random junk. /dev/shm is for POSIX shared memory and semaphores
created with sem_open() and shm_open(). We don't want random breakage
because people put files in there. /dev/shm is reserved.
Because of this, it's *actively harmful* for /dev/shm to be used by
initscripts, or indeed anything except the glibc POSIX shm_*() and
sem_() implementation.
Where was it ever written down that any package could use /dev/shm?
They can't.
Regards,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
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 v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFDpWtzVcFcaSW/uEgRAoRHAKC4QgBqoiKBTnYa9/mA6ufn7BZhTACfRA1A
/jJqmirucyfZUY+BiJXFJRg=
=qC5b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: