[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /run vs. /lib/run

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 11:41:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> 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.

/run cannot be created during the boot process since it may be needed
before / is writeable. Also, if /run does not exist when the system is
up, the admin may think that the name is available and put real data
there (or just simply expect it to be present once he/she mkdir'ed it),
so removing it is dangerous.

What may be possible (and I'd prefer) is to use a name like /.run, but
AFAIK there are people here who dislike dot-names in /.


     MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
                Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Reply to: