Hi Roger! Please do not Cc: me, I read the list. NB, this reply is maybe too late and useless, but I thought it was better to do that anyway, at least to thank Roger for the time he spent. On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:24:28 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:06:16PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:33:44 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote: >> > I would also appreciate any testing, especially if you're using a >> > nonstandard setup e.g. tmpfs on /var/run and/or /var/lock. >> >> Without having looked/tested your packages and being a bit naive, but >> given that tmpfs for /var/run and /var/lock can be configured through >> /etc/default/rcS, maybe it is more used than you think (and I would not >> completely call it nonstandard), thus it requires a bit more caution. > > Not entirely sure what you mean here. We detect and deal with this > sort of setup automatically. I said "nonstandard" because TTBOMK this > feature is not widely used, and (I am given to understand) somewhat > broken. What is "broken"? /var/run and /var/lock on tmpfs? I have been using them for quite a while now (at least four years) and everything is now fine (obviously after various bugs about sub-directories not being created by daemons were fixed). And I actually think it is more "standard" than what you believe because AFAIK it is the easiest way to avoid excessive writeouts to any disks, especially on SSDs. FWIW, I started using it long before I moved my everyday sid to an SSD, also because there was an easy way to setup it, i.e. through /etc/default/rcS (and I have also thought about /tmp, see <http://bugs.debian.org/402828>). > If you're using RAMRUN/RAMLOCK, then you'll get the same setup, but > mounted under /run and /run/lock, with compatibility symlinks in place. This is what I wanted to hear, thank you. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpEjJ0PIw0gJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature