William Hubbs posted on Tue, 17 May 2011 14:46:49 -0500 as excerpted: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:20:56PM +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos > wrote: >> On 23:58 Tue 17 May, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> > ... >> > 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.
> If you want /tmp to be a tmpfs, that is pretty easy to do through fstab > (I do that here actually). I'm not sure whether we want to force that on > a distribution level or not though. > > The directories that would be affected by having /run on tmpfs would be > /var/run and /var/lock. The suggested way of doing this is to have > /var/run linked to /run and /var/lock linked to /run/lock. Absolutely true. I've run /tmp on tmpfs (with /var/tmp a symlink to it tho that took a bit of additional setup) for some time now and love it, but it's easy enough to do for those that want it that way, and controversial enough for others that IMO Gentoo doesn't need to get into that policy game, /especially/ not when it unnecessarily complicates the otherwise entirely separate /run discussion. So let's leave /tmp (and /var/tmp) well enough alone and concentrate on the subject at hand, /run and the /var/run symlinks to it. Since I'm posting, I'd personally prefer keeping things pretty much as they are, or arguably creating a /dev/run for the same benefits without a new root directory. But I'm resigned to the fact that what will be will be, and /run seems to have enough momentum behind it that it will be. Given that, we might as well get it over with and get /run in place now, before our lack of it starts causing serious problems and we have to develop workarounds that must then be undone when we finally /do/ break down and go with /run. So reluctantly... but I say go for it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
