On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Well, I added /run and this is what happened: > > http://bugs.debian.org/621036 > > Apparently, "it was stupid for base-files to ship /run without it > being useable", and the bug is reassigned to base-files. > > Does this mean I am supposed to setup /run as well?
Not at all. base-files was only intended to create /run as an empty directory. > Please advise what to do. I am for removing /run from base-files > (because obviosuly nobody thought about a transition plan) and leaving > it entirely to initscripts or whatever package that will use /run. We /have/ thought through a transition plan. It's been discussed on debian-devel and #debian-devel over the last week. The plan is that initscripts will set up a working /run (tmpfs) on boot and on package upgrade. Packages wanting to transition to use /run will have a versioned depends upon /run, which will ensure that it is both present *and* functional. udev decided to start using /run before this was completed, and without a versioned dependency. I have filed a bug against udev about this (#620995). IMO the best action for base-files is to do nothing. This is a bug in udev, and udev will need to be fixed to do the transition properly like all the other packages which will be transitioning to /run. I am planning on writing a detailed plan for the transition to debian-devel-announce detailing how this will work, but udev jumped the gun and started using it before we had got all the uploads done. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
