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

Re: Bug#191036: create /run for programs that run before /var is mounted



On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 28, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:

>  >	I think it is premature to tatify into policy an action that
>  > has not been fully decided upon, and has not yet had all the kinks
>  > ironed out yet. 

>  >	While I understand the use cases presented for /run; I am not
>  > yet convinced that the solutions are mature. We shoulkd first have a
>  > working solution, and present a proposal based on the working set to
>  > policy at that time. 
> I fully agree. I remember providing an alternative solution for all or
> most of the problems which /run should solve, so I'm firmly opposed to
> create this new, unneeded directory, which is nothing more than a
> gratuitous change from other linux systems.

"Gratuitous" would mean that it is a change for change's sake.  The
reasons for the change have been covered in detail; your willingness to
dismiss them because they're not important to your own usage patterns
does not make the change gratuitous.

Although the FHS has greatly improved the state of affairs, the
commingling of data of different types in /etc remains a blemish on the
filesystem.  Your repeated suggestion to "use a symlink" puts all the
burden of working around this blemish on the admin, when the whole
purpose of a binary distribution is to iron out these integration issues
for the benefit of all.

Creating a /run directory does not make the system technically inferior
for any purpose, and makes it technically superior with regards to
several.  The only downside is that it's different from what people are
currently familiar with and what existing programs expect, but there is
a clear solution for maintaining backwards compatibility through a
heirarchy change, one that's been used by the FHS several times before:
a symlink.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpIXEGxfUDFJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: