On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:58:56PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Peter Volkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет: > >> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2]. > > > >> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this > >> directory ... What does everyone else think? > > > > I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until > > there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if > > it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning. > > > > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year, > and so have other distributions.
Once /run is in place, /var/run will be a symbolic link to /run and /var/lock will be a symbolic link to /run/lock. So that will cover /var/run. William
pgpScc5KEIqLu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
