On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The system. dracut, systemd, udev, and so on -- which all are components
of the OS.
All applications.
Ralf, did anybody already asked you what do you understand under the term
Am 01.04.2011 05:32, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious
what adjectives you think of next.
Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works.
You are not only
On 04/01/2011 03:32 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious
what adjectives you think of next.
Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works.
I'm not sure what is the cause for this hatred you seem to have but
2011/4/1 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
So please try to be constructive and respectful in your responses.
Let me step in here as the Fedora Project Leader and end this thread.
If you've got legitimate technical concerns with the implementation of
the /run directory, please open
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jared K. Smith jsm...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2011/4/1 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
So please try to be constructive and respectful in your responses.
Let me step in here as the Fedora Project Leader and end this thread.
Please note that I quoted
Am 31.03.2011 01:38, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
/etc is static configuration data.
There are a number of things under /etc that are not static
configuration data.
/etc is read-only during boot.
/run is writable all the way.
On 03/30/2011 03:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS
On 03/30/2011 04:12 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 04:05:27 PM Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04,
On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
cite
Applications must never create or require special files or
subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
hierarchy provide more than enough flexibility for any package.
/cite
Well, we are not
On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
cite
Applications must never create or require special files or
subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
hierarchy provide more than enough
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:22:14PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
cite
Applications must never create or require special files or
subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
hierarchy provide
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
It's a fairly minor
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or
On Wed, 30.03.11 14:04, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it,
On 03/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what
Ralf Corsepius wote:
It's a massive FHS violation
= release blocker.
who cares ? also /cgroup /selinux /sys /debug ...
FHS is frozen since seven years ago.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/30/2011 05:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 05:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The actual code changes we needed to implement this scheme were trivial
(basically, just bind mount /var/run and /var/lock instead of mounting two
new tmpfs' to them.), which is why we opted to do this so late in the F15
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 01:54:30 PM Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that. And hence
this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE2
Applications must never create or
On 03/30/2011 06:00 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that. And hence
this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
Added to the release notes
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that. And hence
this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
More than that, it's explicitly allowed. So we're
On 03/30/2011 01:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the
Le Mer 30 mars 2011 14:04, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:11 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which
establishes a
Le Mer 30 mars 2011 14:30, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that. And hence
this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
%
Applications must never create or require special
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
The FHS is about having major distros agree about file locations, and
documenting the result. Which seems to be exactly what happened here.
Well, documentation on a mailing list is fine for F15, but it really
On 03/30/2011 02:42 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:36:38AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
No flames from me. This is a sensible, thought-through change with
cross-distro buy-in and no major downsides. It is outside of the FHS, but is
in the _spirit_ of it, and would fit into an updated release of the
standard, if there
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The actual code changes we needed to implement this scheme were trivial
(basically, just bind mount /var/run and /var/lock instead of mounting two
new tmpfs' to them.), which is
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that. And hence
this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
Am 30.03.2011 15:05, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
No flames from me. This is a sensible, thought-through change with
cross-distro buy-in and no major downsides.
I could not disagree more.
without any argument?
if all distributions agree with it where exactly do you have
a problem? After 7 years
On 03/30/2011 02:08 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are allowed? I can't find that.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
It is outside of the FHS,
It's a clear violation of the FHS.
Indeed, but there really is no suitable FHS-compliant location for files
of these types, so we had no choice but to
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other directories below / are
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
it.
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
fields
Russ herrold wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
it.
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:03, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
I also don't think you can really justify the massive qualifier in your
assertion. The actual text of the (7 year old) FHS has this to say:
7 year old doesn't mean obsolete and doesn't mean to adopt any crack
ridden idea
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
introducing /run as well.
Bravo!
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say no
other
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 04:05:27 PM Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Also, can
On 03/30/2011 07:00 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
fields of LSB, FHS and LANANA to make sure there are traceable
paths for such requests. Post the URLs to your bugs in the
LSB / LF tracker if you assert you have done such
On Wed, 30.03.11 19:56, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 07:00 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
fields of LSB, FHS and LANANA to make sure there are traceable
paths for such requests. Post the URLs to your bugs in
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
SNIP
So, this is what is implemented for F15 now. For F16 we will make a
minor change on top of this: /var/run and /var/lock will become symlinks
to /run (resp /run/lock), so that we don't have to use bind mounts
anymore which
On Wed, 30.03.11 09:35, Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
in Fedora land.
Well, the technical change is actually minimal, and this is
On Wed, 30.03.11 13:54, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
introducing /run as well.
I guess I need to clarify this. Ubuntu actually
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 09:35, Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
On behalf of everyone at anaconda, thanks for fixing something we've all
Am 30.03.2011 13:54, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
dracut and udev
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:16 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
in Fedora land.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. We have a features process with lots
of
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not defined by FHS
and even though we have asked them to update it (libexec, /selinux
/sys etc), there is noone maintaining it.
FWIW, libexec can be argued not to be a violation of the current FHS,
because the FHS
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:24:42AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
in Fedora land.
Well, up
On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
have been 'features', not submit them as features, and happily bypass
the entire 'feature' process with all its bureaucracy.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Adam Miller
maxamill...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
however, a little concerned with the precedence it is either creating or
following in the path of.
This has behind is something IMHO bigger than FESCo: the agreement of
key maintainers across distros. That's hard
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 12:49 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:24:42AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
have been 'features', not submit them as features, and happily bypass
On 03/30/2011 11:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
I have better things to do than spend my morning looking through old
changelogs and freeze dates, thanks. Are you
On 03/30/2011 07:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
It's a fairly minor
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 23:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/30/2011 11:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
I have better things to do than spend my morning looking
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/30/2011 11:19 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
So we should disband FESCo and just let everyone commit whatever changes
they want without oversight or community inclusion and just hope it builds
and runs in the end?
Yes,
On 03/30/2011 11:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
have been 'features',
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 11:16 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 03/30/2011 11:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
of times, to simply go ahead and commit
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 20:16 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
FHS does not require every RPM package to not add arbitrary
directories, but Fedora packaging guidelines do. We have a packaging
standard. This change violates that packaging standard, so there are
three possibilities:
Can you cite
Am 30.03.2011 20:01, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
I have better things to do than spend my morning looking through old
changelogs and freeze dates, thanks. Are you really suggesting it's
never happened?
if you have no
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 20:16 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
FHS does not require every RPM package to not add arbitrary
directories, but Fedora packaging guidelines do. We have a packaging
standard. This change
On 03/31/2011 12:00 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so please do the better things instead flaming here about a
single folder which introducing is not political correct enough
for your eyes
Pretty sure you completely misunderstood Adam Williamson. He has not
flamed anybody.
Rahul
--
devel
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What more would you want? Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?
But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions. All it says is
that it should be carefully considered.
Rahul
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What more would you want? Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?
But FHS permits this change to be done by
Am 30.03.2011 20:44, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What more would you want? Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?
But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions. All it says is
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 00:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What more would you want? Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?
But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions.
On 03/31/2011 12:09 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Sure, and the distribution in question does such changes - via its
packaging guidelines.
It might be obvious to you that this change requires a packaging
guideline but that requirement is not well documented and is not
mandated by what you are
John Reiser wrote:
Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
I'm a little fuzzy on the timelines of these changes so I might be one
release off, but here's two examples.
-Fedora 10 changed curl from using openssl to nss.
-Fedora 14 changed openldap from using
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:30 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
it.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com wrote:
How do changes to the FHS actually happen ? All I can find is the names
of the three past editors of the standard, and a mailing list that seems
to be overrun by spam.
There doesn't seem to be any body/group that
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.03.11 13:54, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
2011/3/30 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
in Fedora land.
Well, up to a point, Lord
2011/3/30 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2011/3/30 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
in
W dniu 30 marca 2011 22:30 użytkownik drago01 drag...@gmail.com napisał:
2011/3/30 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2011/3/30 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com said:
First, people are wondering if this change is compatible with some
obsolete specification, next people are wondering if this change is
compatible with distribution feature process. I repeat again, this is
not a feature this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2011 04:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com said:
First, people are wondering if this change is compatible with some
obsolete specification, next people are wondering if this change is
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 22:25 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/3/30 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the way things are
On 03/30/2011 07:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
It's a fairly
On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
It is outside of the FHS,
It's a clear violation of the FHS.
Indeed, but there really is no suitable FHS-compliant location for files
David Lutterkort wrote:
How do changes to the FHS actually happen ?
see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6704952
All I can find is the names
of the three past editors of the standard, and a mailing list that seems
to be overrun by spam.
Someone should ask matti or
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:03:22PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Right, but devs should ignore it or feel tempted to rape such a standard.
Use of the word rape in this context has entirely inappropriate
connotations. Please don't use it in this way.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de said:
How about /var/run ??
What would be wrong with it?
I believe the need is for something guaranteed to be on the root
filesystem, and having a separate /var is still valid.
I'm not sure why this doesn't go under /etc, but if I were
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
It is outside of the FHS,
It's a clear violation of the FHS.
Indeed,
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:39, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
It is outside of the FHS,
It's a clear violation of the
On Wed, 30.03.11 16:24, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de said:
How about /var/run ??
What would be wrong with it?
I believe the need is for something guaranteed to be on the root
filesystem, and having a separate /var is
On Wed, 30.03.11 12:41, David Lutterkort (lut...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:30 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
On Wed, 30.03.11 21:08, Colin Watson (cjwat...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
So, I'd like to correct myself: Ubuntu has agreed to To me it appears
that they will do it.
If you need somebody who works on Ubuntu for Canonical to support this,
I'm happy to be such a person. Supporting /var/run
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
/etc is static configuration data.
There are a number of things under /etc that are not static
configuration data.
/etc is read-only during boot.
/run is writable all the way.
/etc/run could be too.
--
Chris Adams
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:42:11AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 00:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What more would you want? Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
follow' means that if you don't follow it you
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
I think the problem here is how this was done, not as much what was
done. Would it have been so much trouble to have discussed this in
advance?
... it is way more efficient to beg forgiveness for picking a colour
for a
98 matches
Mail list logo
