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

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

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:26:45PM +0100, jdthood@tiscali.nl wrote:
> It does matter, because /run needs to be usable before other 
> filesystems

I realise your heart's set on /run, but is there any possibility
of putting it under /lib/run or /boot/early-writable-fs instead of
introducing a new directory on / that's of very limited use?

(/usr, /var, /home, /opt, /srv and /tmp are out in that they'll get
over-mounted; /dev, /sys and /proc are out because they're all sorts of
weirdness and aren't appropriate anyway; /mnt and /media are out; /bin,
/sbin, and /root are inappropriate; that leaves /boot and /lib. And I
guess /boot is out since it's often a separate partition too)

> 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.

Huh? URL? I'm surprised there isn't at least a pro-forma objection to
creating a new directory in /.

> I do not count "It's ugly!" as a strong reason.

You should; especially since it seems solvable by hiding it in /lib
alongside /lib/modules.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: