On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 06/02/13 09:53 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> On 6 February 2013 14:18, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> My system is a brand new ~testing installation with a > >> stage3-amd64-20130110.tar.bz2. I am not sure who is responsible > >> for creating this symlink. I see the symlink is present on that > >> stage3 tarball so somehow it must have been removed from my system. > >> Even if it was a user error, then shouldn't there be a mechanism of > >> recreating it on every boot if it's gone missing? At least until > >> all init scripts migrate to /run. > >> > > > > ..there was a discussion a week or two back about portage cleaning up > > symlinks, or something that needs to be done to keep portage warning > > about symlinks, or something. Anyways, I'm wondering if a change was > > made related to that and for whatever reason portage is now cleaning > > /var/run > > > > Portage will "cleanup" the /var/run symlink after unmerging the last > package that installed files under /var/run. > > I think an early init script (bootmisc?) needs to create the /var/run > symlink if it is missing.
The only problem with this approach is it doesn't solve the issue for people who are not using OpenRc. William
pgpk27MyEyA_Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
