Hi! > + replacement for <file>/var/run</file>, and its > + subdirectory <file>/run/lock</file> is a replacement for > + <file>/var/lock</file>. These changes have been > + adopted by most distributions and have been proposed > + for inclusion in a future revision of the FHS. Both > + are expected to be temporary filesystems, whose Reading this text, my understanding is that /run/lock should be a separate temporary filesystem (on top of /run). I would prefer if we not explicitly added that to policy and only say that /run is expected to be a temporary file system. Other than that, the proposed text looks fine too me and has my seconds. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature