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

Re: /run vs /var/run

On Sunday 25 December 2005 00:55, Goswin von Brederlow 
<brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> 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.

Unless /var/run is a tmpfs.

> So by making /run official there is no extra fixing of package that
> don't already need fixing anyway.

By making /var/run a tmpfs there is no need to fix any package, and in 
addition we get things working better on flash memory systems (which I expect 
to become really popular soon - see the OLPC project for an example).

> 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.

A tmpfs on /var/run can work with a separate /var partition, I've already 
suggested a way of making it work.

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Reply to: