On Fri, 01.07.11 14:54, Jeff Licquia ([email protected]) wrote: > >> - /var/run/utmp is explicitly mentioned in FHS 2.3. After looking at > >> Fedora 15, I decided it should stay there, since there's no /run/utmp > >> there. I figure that having /run/utmp via symlinking /var/run to /run > >> is OK, even though not explicitly mentioned, so there should be no > >> issues. OTOH, do we want to encourage people to move utmp? > > > > Hmm? On F15 there is a /run/utmp. > > How odd. OTOH, the Fedora system I have has been upgraded; perhaps > there are some weird upgrade scenarios where a separate /var/run is > kept. It has other issues, too, so maybe it's time to redo it.
Note tht /var/run and /var are identical, since the former is just a symlink to the latter (or, on upgraded systems a bind mount). That means that if there's an utmp file in one of the two dirs there's one as well in the other -- and actually the very same file. > > "(removed or truncated as appropriate)" ← what do you mean by > > "truncated"? Everything should just go, nothing should be truncated. > > I believe the truncation reference may be for utmp. At least at one > time, the utmp routines weren't guaranteed to create utmp if it didn't > exist. Well, but /run is supposed to be tmpfs, so I am not sure how truncation makes sense here. > > "Process identifier (PID) files, which were originally placed in > > <filename>/etc</filename>" ← /etc? Do you mean /var/run? > > A long, long time ago, these files were written to /etc. You sometimes > still see references to things like /etc/named.pid in old docs. I'd drop that reference, simply because people might get confused by this. Like I was ;-) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
