Re: /run vs /var/run
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 18, Joe Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
But what about the future, and what about it being specifically for
>> 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.
/run doesn't especially /need/ to be a tmpfs fs does it? It could
equally be on the root fs, or a symlink to somewhere else. The
important thing is that is exists and is standardised; it's then up to
the local admin how he wants it to behave. Now that it's in sysvinit,
the first criterion is satisfied, and hopefully in the fullness of
time the second will also, if and when it's added to the FHS.
>> 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.
On the contrary, he made several good points, which you would do well
to fully consider before dismissing them out of hand.
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/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----