On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:09:16AM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote: > > Anyway, the reason this whole thread started out with /var/lock is > > that the Linux world apparently also did this with /var/spool/lock. > > But our /var/spool/lock is specifically uucp's lockdir (uucp/daemon). > Creating lvm subdir beneath is (owned by operator) feels monumentally > gross.
Bleh. Yeah, ok, I dunno then. Adding /var/lock seems like a decent approach (and maybe we should get rid of /var/spool/lock, since we removed base uucp quite a whle back...) -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org