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

Re: /run vs /var/run

Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:

> On Saturday 24 December 2005 11:35, Goswin von Brederlow 
>> Basicaly everything that needs /run doesn't use /var/run anyway,
>> e.g. mount. And one could link /var/run to /run on both / and /var and
>> then nothing needs to change even if it uses /var/run.
> You mean to say that nothing needs to change about from adding a new directory 
> that's not in the FHS.

I mean that stuff that needs an early writebale dir doesn't/can't use
/var/run for technical reasons already. They use /etc or hack around
for themself or even already use /run. By picking /run over /var/run
probably no package will stop using /var/run if it now can use it
without hacks.

So by making /run official there is no extra fixing of package that
don't already need fixing anyway. I think that given the number of
users with a seperate /var partition buggy packages that use /var/run
too early will have been found already.


Reply to: