Vagrant Cascadian writes:
> On 2023-08-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> We could try to make that change: /run as tmpfs, or wiped by
>> ‘cleanup-service-type’.
>
> Or both, really!
>
> Filed:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64775
I tried this a while ago, and the trivial case of mounting /run as
On 2023-08-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>> Oh, I noticed on reconfiguring back to a system without the patches to
>> support /run/privileged configurations ... the /run/privileged directory
>> is still present, with all those files sitting there in their previous
>>
Hi,
Hilton Chain via Bug reports for GNU Guix writes:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 04:24:17 +0800,
> Saku Laesvuori via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
>>
>> [1 ]
>> > > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear.
>> > > Honestly I don't get why it's not already using
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 04:06:37 +0800,
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On 2023-08-06, Hilton Chain wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 04:24:17 +0800,
> > Saku Laesvuori via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> >>
> >> [1 ]
> >> > > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear.
> >> > >
On 2023-08-06, Hilton Chain wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 04:24:17 +0800,
> Saku Laesvuori via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
>>
>> [1 ]
>> > > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear.
>> > > Honestly I don't get why it's not already using TMPFS.
>> >
>> > One argument could be
Hi all,
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 04:24:17 +0800,
Saku Laesvuori via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> > > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear.
> > > Honestly I don't get why it's not already using TMPFS.
> >
> > One argument could be how much ram it takes:
> >
> > $
> > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear.
> > Honestly I don't get why it's not already using TMPFS.
>
> One argument could be how much ram it takes:
>
> $ du -sc /run/*
> 12 /run/blkid
> 0 /run/booted-system
> 0 /run/current-system
> 1312
On 2023-07-21, Csepp wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian writes:
>> While I know that Guix does not really follow the FHS in most respects,
>> maybe the intention of /run defined there should still be respected?
>>
>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s15.html
>>
>> 3.15. /run :
Vagrant Cascadian writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> So, if there are files sitting around in /run, they do not get cleaned
> up unless it is something guix is already aware of
> (e.g. /run/setuid-programs).
>
> I noticed this when experimenting with:
>
>
So, if there are files sitting around in /run, they do not get cleaned
up unless it is something guix is already aware of
(e.g. /run/setuid-programs).
I noticed this when experimenting with:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61462
Add support for file capabilities(7)
Even after a reboot, the
10 matches
Mail list logo
