Re: /run vs /var/run
On Sunday 25 December 2005 00:55, Goswin von Brederlow
> Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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