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

Re: /run vs. /lib/run

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> 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
to me.

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 (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: