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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature