On Tuesday 27 February 2018 13:20:09 Martin S. Weber wrote: > On 2018-02-27 12:46:46, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 February 2018 06:46:50 Martin S. Weber wrote: > > > On 2018-02-27 05:03:15, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > > > (...) > > > > So, is there somewhere that /run is initially populated from, > > > > (...) > > > > > > man 5 tmpfiles.d, see also its SEE ALSO. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Martin > > > > Apparently new with jessie. But neither the lone jessie install, or > > the only stretch install actually have files in that directory. > > In which of the three, /{etc,run,usr/lib}/tmpfiles.d ? According to > systemdese, the distribution files belong in /usr/lib/ (check the > directory, I believe you won't find it empty), administrator > adjustments in /etc (so no surprise a vanilla install doesn't have > those) and /run, uhmm.. Ask a systemd disciple. > > > If its there, why not make use of it? > > Apparantly, it is being used. > > > Neither jessie nor stretch have a manpage for systemd.tmpfiles. > > Where'd you get that one from? tmpfiles.d(5) references > systemd-tmpfiles(8), which follows the typical systemd naming scheme > of systemd-xxx for systemd specific service applications. I suggest > you report a docco bug for the referencing file mentioning > systemd.tmpfiles instead of systemd-tmpfiles.
Thats my mistake I guess, the dot got stuck in my 83 yo wet ram. > > > There is a manpage for systemd-tmpfiles, and apparently some of its > > callable subroutines. > > You're not exactly supposed to call systemd-tmpfiles yourself. > systemd-tmpfiles(8) documents the systemd services that call > systemd-tmpfiles(8). During configuration development, it might be > helpful for the administrator to manually verify their configuration > though, so let's rejoice this manpage exists. > > > I've read that manual, > man 5 tmpfiles.d > systemd-tmpfiles(8) ? You're reading the wrong manual. Return to > tmpfiles.d(5). > > > (...) but with all the options, (...) > > Some problems are inherently complex, and lead to verbose solutions, > simply because of the necessary configurability. "Of course" a shell > script would be "simpler", but then again you'd need different calls > to binaries, touch, chown, mkdir, mknod, cp, etc. If you can't be > bothered to figure out the character you need to create the type of > filesystem entry you require, how can you argue that you could be > bothered to look up mknod vs. mkdir, touch or chmod? > > > figuring out which one > > you need looks like a bit of Russian roulette with live ammo. > > Your solution being? Besides, it's not russian roulette without live > ammo. :) > > And how > > does that work when /run is a link to /var/run? and it doesn't work > > thru links. Confusing without a lot more study > > I suggest you look at your "var.conf" tmpfiles.d entry (the one from > your distribution). The situation you describe creates a circular > symbolic link. Would you rather it worked? > No /run is indeed a link to /var/run, whish is real, so we're good there. Being sorta forced to learn newer stuff after half a decade on nice stable wheezy has spoilt me. > Regards, > -Martin Thanks Martin. -- Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>