Bug#620870: debian-policy: Please add /run as FHS exception
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:29:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Would anybody object to Roger patch being applied without the reference to
> > /run/shm, and leave this particular topic to another bug report ?
>
> > Beside, I attach an alternative patch by Thomas Hood that I found in the
> > log but which was not send to the list.
>
> One concern I have about this patch is that it replaces references to
> /var/run and /var/lock with /run and /run/lock, but the only explanation
> that /run should be used in place of /var/run is in a non-normative
> footnote. So we've effectively lifted the prohibition on shipping files
> under /var/run with this change, which isn't really what we want.
Do you mean that the FHS restricts the use of /var/run but says nothing of /run,
so we need to state that FHS restriction for /var/run apply to /run now ?
> Should it be spelled out in the normative bits of policy that packages
> "should" use /run for anything that the FHS says should be in /var/run, and
> that packages must not ship files under any of /run, /var/run, or /var/lock?
Probably yes. However a new FHS version might fix that for us.
I like to move on with this bug and upload policy 3.9.3, so unless a new wording
is proposed soon I wonder whether we should not settle on the last patch and
open a new bug for improvement.
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: