On Mon, 9 May 2011, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 01:44, R P Herrold <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, I realize FHS and LSB are not King Canute, and the tide's path is clear. >> I think mandating rather than optionally permitting use of a tmpfs, >> however, is not a desireable approach
> With that cleared up, do you agree to add /run to FHS? If yes, I can > whip up a draft. Given the timeline, it's a good idea to move fast. I certainly have no objection to 'corralling' all the cruft out of /proc, and /dev/shm/ and so forth into a single well-known and predictable directory path, available early and in all run levels -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
