On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:51:17PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was discussed in a bug report iirc, here is some summary: > > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-distributions-to-include-run-directory-1219006.html > > > > Apparently, many tools (among them udev) will soon require a /run/ > > directory that is mounted early (as tmpfs). It is probably a good idea > > to add this to the filesystem and initscripts packages. > > I have just been reading up on this, and I agree that we should add it. > > At some point in the future we should probably consider symlinking > /var/run to /run and /var/lock to /run/lock, but we would have to > implement <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18157> first, and /run is > useful even without the symlinks. My understanding of the situation is > that it is ok or /var/run and /run to be different, but please let me > know if I'm wrong on this. > > I guess we'll need to add the mountpoint to the filesystem package > (possibly with permissions 0000 to avoid accidents) and mount the > tmpfs early in rc.sysinit (I'll write the patch as soon as people > agree that this is the right thing to do). > > Cheers, > > Tom
Why symlinks? Why not bind mount /run to /var/run and /run/lock to /var/lock once / is available? Something else to think about: do we want to carry this back to the initcpio? d
