On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 00:22, Bill Allombert wrote:
We should focus on /run for now.
OK, I'm glad you are going to focus on this.
It looks like you will need to get policy changed before the
maintainers of the affected packages will implement /run/.
--
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01 May 2003 09:46:17 +0200, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 00:22, Bill Allombert wrote:
We should focus on /run for now.
OK, I'm glad you are going to focus on this.
It looks like you will need to get policy changed before the
maintainers of the affected
The libc resolver and bind's named are indeed flawed and djbdns
looks like a better way to access DNS. However, resolv.conf
and named.conf handling still needs to be fixed for the sake of
those applications that use the libc resolver.
I've fixed the handling on my own system using the resolvconf
Hello Debian policy,
For clarification, here the quote from the original mail that start this
thread.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory.
...
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 12:22:04AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
For my part, I find the whole resolv.conf concept flawed since
changing it does not affect running process, so I always use a proxy
DNS.
Yes, I concur. Not that this is the solution to your current problem,
but you might be
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... which in turn
allows us to decrease the complexity of /etc/.
By what metric?
Does elegance have a metric?
You are adding a bunch of symlinks and weird
things like the proposed resolv.conf handling.
The resolv.conf handling proposal is separate; I
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:56:16PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
The resolv.conf handling proposal is separate; I have
Yes is it. We should focus on /run for now.
Afterward we could discuss the resolv.conf issue. For my
part, I find the whole resolv.conf concept flawed since changing
it does not
Marco d'Itri wrote:
it makes all systems more complex
Complexity is increased by adding /run/ ... which in turn
allows us to decrease the complexity of /etc/.
I don't think I am alone in regarding this trade-off as
worthwhile, both in terms of functional benefits and in
terms of the elegance of
On Apr 29, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it makes all systems more complex
Complexity is increased by adding /run/ ... which in turn
allows us to decrease the complexity of /etc/.
By what metric? You are adding a bunch of symlinks and weird things like
the proposed resolv.conf
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 08:39:51PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
it makes all systems more complex
Complexity is increased by adding /run/ ... which in turn
allows us to decrease the complexity of /etc/.
I don't think I am alone in regarding this trade-off as
worthwhile,
reassign 191036 debian-policy
thanks
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.8.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 191036 debian-policy
Bug#191036: create /run for programs that run before /var is mounted
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
On Apr 28, Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we are going to extend the FHS we should modify our own policy at least.
Do we have a consensus on /run? I don't think so.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [665 agG/r/pCLQ3L.]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:56:24AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
discussion, we need to move program state out of /etc but for some
programs that run early
Hi Bill!
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:56:24AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
discussion, we need to move program
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:51:31PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Hi Bill!
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
discussion, we need to move program state out of /etc but for
Hi Bill!
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:51:31PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Hi Bill!
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:31:37PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Hi Bill!
Hi Henrique!
The proposal is to have base-files creating the /run directory,
since base-files maintainer has reassigned the bug to debian-policy.
If you something more formal, maybe
As an
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:56:24 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If we are going to extend the FHS we should modify our own policy at
least. You need to make a policy proposal, get two seconds and no
objections. For your convenience I'm reassigning the bug.
I think
Hi Bill!
You wrote:
Thanks a lot! I will try to improve it again:
As an extension to the FHS, the Debian filesystem has a /run directory
intended to hold program state file for programs that run early during
the boot process when /var is not yet mounted.
/run must be in the
Hi Bas!
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Bill!
You wrote:
Thanks a lot! I will try to improve it again:
As an extension to the FHS, the Debian filesystem has a /run directory
intended to hold program state file for programs that run early during
the boot
On Apr 28, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is premature to tatify into policy an action that
has not been fully decided upon, and has not yet had all the kinks
ironed out yet.
While I understand the use cases presented for /run; I am not
yet convinced
Hi Bas!
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:24:27PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
You wrote:
As an extension to the FHS, the Debian filesystem has a /run directory
intended to hold program state file for programs that run early during
the boot process when /var is not yet mounted.
/run
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 28, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is premature to tatify into policy an action that
has not been fully decided upon, and has not yet had all the kinks
ironed out yet.
While I
On Apr 29, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fully agree. I remember providing an alternative solution for all or
most of the problems which /run should solve, so I'm firmly opposed to
create this new, unneeded directory, which is nothing more than a
gratuitous change from other
25 matches
Mail list logo
