Re: /run vs /var/run
Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sunday 25 December 2005 00:55, Goswin von Brederlow
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Changes nothing as it isn't used due to not being available early
during boot _now_.
>> 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).
ln -s /run /var/run
>> 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.
Not on all kernels in Debian (or at least not with sarge mount) and it
adds an ugly clutch with a race condition. Any attempt to use /var/run
after it got moved away and before it got moved back screws up. And
don't forget that mount can take a long time for journal recovery or
waiting for an nfs server.
Havin just plain /run avoids that completly.