On Mon, 9 May 2011, Karl Goetz wrote: > I'd suggest we should explicitly require that its contents are not > persistent, considering the proposed uses for it.
and that was the point of the earlier thread --- This is ** not ** something which NEEDS to be mandated, and so from which a standards organization point of view, rather one in which to permit 'local options' If a given distribution ** wants ** the support load of NOT having enough info remaining persistent to diagnose state by simple inspection, on their head be it --- but we do not need to FORCE all to so suffer -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
