Re: /run vs. /lib/run
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> There aren't any technical differences between the first two options.
I agree with that.
> Each of the solutions has a degree of ugliness -- in the first case,
> the ugliness is in violating the "no new directories in /" rule and
> making /run/ifstate seem more important than /etc/network/ifstate or
> /var/run/ifstate would be; in the second, it's in having to introduce
> a new subdirectory name to separate the variable parts of /lib out; in
> the third, it's the system specific ugliness of having to ensure /var
> is mounted early.
That's not the ugliness that I care about with /lib/run; the uglyness that
I care about is that it's introducing /var content into /lib, which feels
like a serious violation of the spirit of the FHS to me (yes, we're
already violating the letter, but only because there's no /share and /lib
is essentially a merger of /lib and /share). /run is not equivalent to
/var/lib; it's equivalent to /var/run, which is not at all a lib directory
But it's all just aesthetics.
> (TBH, I'd be much happier just making the technical changes necessary to
> ensure /var is mounted early -- keeps the filesystem sane, and it's just
> a simple matter of programming, rather than arguing over what's ugly.
Yeah, I agree with this too.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>