Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday 25 December 2005 00:55, Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Saturday 24 December 2005 11:35, Goswin von Brederlow >> > >> >> Basicaly everything that needs /run doesn't use /var/run anyway, >> >> e.g. mount. And one could link /var/run to /run on both / and /var and >> >> then nothing needs to change even if it uses /var/run. >> > >> > You mean to say that nothing needs to change about from adding a new >> > directory that's not in the FHS. >> >> I mean that stuff that needs an early writebale dir doesn't/can't use >> /var/run for technical reasons already. > > Unless /var/run is a tmpfs.
Changes nothing as it isn't used due to not being available early during boot _now_. >> So by making /run official there is no extra fixing of package that >> don't already need fixing anyway. > > By making /var/run a tmpfs there is no need to fix any package, and in > addition we get things working better on flash memory systems (which I expect > to become really popular soon - see the OLPC project for an example). ln -s /run /var/run >> I think that given the number of >> users with a seperate /var partition buggy packages that use /var/run >> too early will have been found already. > > A tmpfs on /var/run can work with a separate /var partition, I've already > suggested a way of making it work. Not on all kernels in Debian (or at least not with sarge mount) and it adds an ugly clutch with a race condition. Any attempt to use /var/run after it got moved away and before it got moved back screws up. And don't forget that mount can take a long time for journal recovery or waiting for an nfs server. Havin just plain /run avoids that completly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]