When doing that for fedora/rhel/centos packaging, who is responsible for the creation of the directory, /run/unbound in this case, if it doesn't exist? Is it the responsibility of the packager or the application? On Sunday, June 30, 2019, 6:14:00 PM GMT+1, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Ron Varburg via Unbound-users wrote:
> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 04:11:12 > From: Ron Varburg via Unbound-users <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Suggestion: by default, create /run/unbound and use it for pidfile > > Currently, /run/unbound.pid is the default pidfile. > I suggest to change that to /run/unbound/unbound.pid. Creating /run/unbound/ > if it doesn't exists and > no other directory was configured. > Rational: to make /run tidier. It is true that unbound.pid might be the only > file in /run/unbound/. > On the other hand, I think /run/unbound/ is the natural place for > control-interface: /run/unbound/unbound.sock > I think apache2 uses that approach. Sometimes apache2.pid is the only file > under /run/apache2. Still, > it prefers /run/apache2/apache2.pid over /run/apache2.pid. > It is also true that the /run/unbound directory could be set by appropriate > configuration. But having a > default setting requires less administration. We already do this for fedora/rhel/centos packaging. Although, we haven't changed from the TLS socket on localhost to the socket file in /run/unbound/unbound.sock as a default. Paul
