-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/02/13 09:18 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 06/02/13 09:02 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 06/02/2013 14:58, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> Thanks. Would it made sense to symlink /var/run -> /run so we >>> don't end up with stable entries in /var/run directory? Some >>> of my init scripts appear to reported as "crashed" whereas the >>> process is running just fine. I suspect this is because a >>> stale entry is in /var/run directory (or /run I am not sure) > >> I would say that we should have that symlink, and I told >> WilliamH so before. I think he was going to ask Mike (vapier) >> about adding the symlink to baselayout itself, so that it doesn't >> get reaped away. > >> I agree that the symlink should stay there for compatibility at >> least, which should also answer Ian's question. > > > OK - so I've noticed some issues with the way the /run migration > has gone down; it seems that a lot of systems do not have a > consistent migration and as I don't remember (and my initial look > couldn't find) the details for its implementation, I'm hoping > someone can chime in and (A) describe the process as it is supposed > to work, and (B) point out where it's implemented so that this > implementation can be adjusted (or how it's been adjusted can be > reviewed) to get everyone's system to a consistent state. > > Normally i'd just ask WilliamH on irc, but since this is more of a > forensic discussion i thought it better to do it here.. > > So, *my* systems do have /var/run -> /run , which means at some > point the /run migration did happen and compatibility symlinks were > created. If hwoarang's systems don't have this, there must be an > issue somewhere. > > Now, with /run migration itself -- WilliamH and I discussed this > issue where /run (when the initial change was to be made if > upgrading to openrc-0.11.x) would always have a symlink to > /lib/something/openrc/ in the directory itself (that is, underneath > the tmpfs mount). However when I investigated, I discovered that > two of my systems had actual dead directories and temp files in > /run (and no symlink). Code has been added to /etc/init.d/bootmisc > to clean out anything in /run underneath the tmpfs, but it might be > pertinent to figure out why this happened in the first place, as it > might be related to why the /var/run symlink might not have been > created (and relate to other inconsistencies we haven't found > yet). >
As a follow up -- there are probably two cases to look at; #1 are stable-only users (so just what happens when the stable bumps occurred), and #2 are ~arch users and/or ~arch keyworders. I'm going to guess that the majority of inconsistencies with the planned results will come from #2 as the different implementations of /run migration would have taken place differently with each ~arch bump depending on who installed what when.. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlESZy8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDtpAD+N8OuOAL44dwCL2EE72IzGuxX Bmz9YFagyEqauI2da5UA/RIAfpPDdd0of0LDxH1T/9C5stnbovzlRqnQCKi66e+1 =SWm7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
