Bug#620870: debian-policy: Please add /run as FHS exception
Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:58:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Note that this version of the patch explicitly says that packages
>> "should" use /run and /run/lock in preference to /var/run and
>> /var/lock. My understanding is that this is where we want to go, but
>> if this is premature, that paragraph can easily be removed for now
>> without changing the substance of the rest of this change.
> Seconded (with this change). For wheezy, packages can use /run only
> with the appropriate dependency on initscripts (to ensure its
> presence and writability), which means that in general it's advisable
> to continue to use the old paths, which are guaranteed to be
> available at all points during a wheezy upgrade. There's also cross-
> distribution/OS compatibility to consider; since the old paths
> continue to be avilable on all systems, that may well be the better
> choice. So I think that it might be OK for wheezy+1, but is probably
> premature at this point.
> For wheezy, we've only migrated packages using non-standard locations
> such as /lib/init/rw, /dev/.xxx and /dev/shm/.xxx etc., and left
> packages using /var/run and /var/lock alone. They are however at
> liberty to migrate individually should they wish to add the appropriate
> initscripts dependency and switch their paths over. But I would
> generally just advise waiting for wheezy+1 and switching the paths
> without the dependency--the files will already be present in both
> locations at that point.
Ah, okay, thanks. I've removed that paragraph from the version that I'll
commit.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: