On Mon, 9 May 2011 02:02:11 +0200 Richard Hartmann <[email protected]> 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 > > As was pointed out here [1], it does not matter if it's a tmpfs or > something else as long as it's writable very early during boot-up and > does not mandate persistence across reboots. I'd suggest we should explicitly require that its contents are not persistent, considering the proposed uses for it. kk > Richard > > [1] http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718#c6 -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
