On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 15:13, Arthur de Jong wrote: > I think it should be possible for any program that writes to /etc (it it > cannot use /var) either to be configurable to store it's data somewhere > else or use a symlink to store the data somwhere else (e.g. /proc/flashrom > or /nfsmounteddiskbutnotroot or other unusual place). I think that should > be the first step in tris transition.
Would you find /etc/run/ more acceptable? > I haven't seen a very good description of /run yet and I'm not completely > sure that something like "a place to write files to when you can't write > to /var yet" is useful. This is not a useful description because /var may > be mounted at different times on different systems (e.g. nfs mounted /var > vs localy mounted /var). The description does not have to be much more specific than that in order to guarantee that /run/ solves the problem, which is that there are certain programs pre-required for networking which, ipso facto, cannot use network-mounted filesystems to store their state. Is /run/ "useful"? It solves the problem. Of course, it is not the only possible solution to the problem. If you wish, you can regard /run/ as an interim solution, to be used until such time as programs are rewritten to make /run/ no longer necessary. -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>