Re: /run vs /var/run
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
[no need to CC me; I'm subscribed to the list]
> On Dec 18, Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Debian guarantees that it exists on debian systems.
>> But what about the future, and what about it being specifically for
> Tell us... Do you have reasons to believe that we will be forced to
> remove /dev/shm/ in the future?
Yes. Being an implementation detail of POSIX-SHM, the kernel or libc
are free to change the POSIX-SHM implementation at any time, so there
are no guarantees. As Christoph mentioned, there is no requirement
for it to be user visible; it's not mandated by any standard. As long
as shm_open(3) et. al. continue to work, any change could be made
without breaking backwards compatibility.
This is independent of it being inappropriate to use for non-SHM uses.
>> /run doesn't especially /need/ to be a tmpfs fs does it? It could
> The current proposal does.
Only if you want a read-only root. If you don't, you could create
/run on the root filesystem, or symlink it to /var/run.
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-----