On Dec 18, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> wrote: > 1. POSIX (or at least SuS v3) does not gaurentee the existence of /dev/shm, > or that if it does exist, that it can be be read as a block device, or that > if it can, it has a file system on it. > 2. Neither does FHS. > 3. The Linux 2.6 device list states that as of now, if /dev/shm exists it > should have a tmpfs filesystem. But makes no guarentees that it exists, or > that it will remain a filesystem Debian guarantees that it exists on debian systems. > 1. It exists only on Linux-based OS's > 2. There is no gaurentee that it will continue to be there at all > 3. There is no guareteee that it will remain a filesystem in the future > even if it is there. > 4. There is no gaurentee that it exists at all. These points apply to the proposed tmpfs-based /run as well. > Sounds it sounds to me like it is a bad idea to use it. Only because you have no clue of what you are talking about. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature