Re: /run vs. /lib/run
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
/run makes much more sense to me. /lib/run just seems unbearably ugly,
not to mention that it would be kind of nice to have a read-only /lib be a
possibility for a variety of reasons (yes, I know, module dependencies
make this hard).
Perhaps this is a bad idea (or perhaps this is even how it's already
done), but given the very limited number of things that would have to use
/run, would it be possible to write them all to use /var/run if it's
available and only if it's not, fall back on /run? That way, /run could
be created during the boot process, then moved to /var/run and removed
again once /var is available, making it a transient aspect of the boot
process and not hanging around as a new top-level directory.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: