Re: Why do we have to support tmpfs for /var/run (policy changes in 3.8.1)
Florian Lohoff <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 11:40:57PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> one of the changes in 3.8.1 was, that support for tmpfs on /var/run
>> (and /var/tmp) became mandatory [9.3.2]. Lintian is now also
>> complaining very loudly (error) if your package ships a directory in
>> /var/run or /var/tmp and suggests to create them in the init script.
>> While I can see the benefits of having /var/tmp on a tmpfs to a certain
>> degree, I don't really see them for /var/run, instead they make things
>> more complicated, slower and error prone (for imho no real gain)
> Interesting - The unix way IMHO was that /tmp looses content on reboot
> while /var/tmp did not. This had been the case for commercial Unices for
> at least some decades.
I'm pretty sure Michael meant /var/lock when he said /var/tmp above.
Policy 3.8.1 doesn't change anything about /var/tmp.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>