Bug#532120: Require support for temporary /var/run/ and /var/lock in all packages
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:04:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 05:01:46PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > The wording of Policy 9.3.2's
> > /var/run and /var/lock may be mounted as temporary filesystems[60], so the
> > init.d scripts must handle this correctly.
> > only applies to init.d scripts. But init.d scripts are not the only scripts
> > using /var/run. Bug#452198 is not RC if you apply this rule only to init.d
> > scripts, because it provides no init.d script.
> > Therefore, I propose to change the requirement so that all packages must
> > support /var/run/ and /var/lock/ on temporary filesystems, and not only
> > those which provide an init script.
> This seems reasonable to me; I don't think we'd foreseen this being a
> problem for things other than init scripts. Do you have a proposed patch
> for this, or a suggestion on how it might be better written?
Given that:
- plenty of users will be using tmpfs for /var/run and /var/lock, so these
subdirectories will be absent after boot;
- you need to be root to create subdirs here;
- most processes started outside of the boot sequence are not going to have
root privileges (including the policy kit process in the example bug
#452198)
I don't think the reference to init scripts is far off. The single
exception that I'm aware of that will create its own /var/run subdir as
needed and doesn't require an init script is sudo.
Perhaps supplementing the "init scripts must handle..." with an "any package
that needs a subdir should have an init script" addresses this?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: