On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:50:52PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 08.06.2011 23:22, schrieb Bill Allombert: > > > Hello Cyril and Michael, > > > > > > Are you willing to resecond this as the final version ? > > > > > > At the current state, I'm not for adding /run/shm to debian-policy. > > If we can get wider acceptance of this feature (cross-distro), then my > > position > > on this might change. Atm this looks like a Debian-only feature with no real > > use-case why we need that. > > Do you still hold that opinion ? > > Would anybody object to Roger patch being applied without the reference to > /run/shm, > and leave this particular topic to another bug report ? > > Beside, I attach an alternative patch by Thomas Hood that I found in the log > but which was not send to the list.
Hi Bill, Your patch looks fine to me. I have no objection to /run/shm being excluded at this time--it's still early days for /run, but I think it's more appropriate than /dev, and we'll see if other distributors pick it up. It has been mentioned in the context of the FHS, but will not be included at present, though /run and /run/lock will be. There are other non-standard uses of /run such as /run/user by systemd which should probably also not be included at this point, and which likewise are not in the current FHS draft. 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
