Bug#620870: debian-policy: Please add /run as FHS exception
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 06:43:02PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > + 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.
>
> After discussion with Michael and others on IRC, I've attached an
> updated patch which just rewords the bit about "temporary filesystems"
> slightly to clarify the above, making it less ambiguous whether there
> are one or two filesystems (we refer just to /run and not to
> /run/lock when describing the use of a temporary filesystem). Note
> that the use of a temporary filesystem is a "should", so does permit
> systems to implement /run using a normal filesystem.
Hello Roger,
I think the /run implementatio has progressed far enough to update policy.
Your last patch was relative to a previous one. Could you regenerate it relative
to current policy and seconders be so kind as to resecond the result ?
Thanks,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: