On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:59:43AM -0500, Dennis Jenkins wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This series starts with a few cleanup patches removing code > > that is no longer required. The final patch fixes an important > > bug preventing LXC startup on certain distros which unwisely > > chose to make /var/run an absolute symlink instead of a relative > > symlink > > > > (Slightly off-topic). Can you cite a reference in the LSB or other > documentation / discussion that describes why linking "/var/run" to "/run" > is bad, and "../run" is preferred? I don't have any reference to point to - but this kind of problem hit by libvirt is the reason why a relative symlink should be preferred IMHO. Probably not too helpful to you though. Perhaps ask on the systemd devel list whether they recommend ../run v /run ? Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list