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've spent 30 minutes digging through Gentoo discussion archives and found lots of notes about making it a link to "/run". If this is ill-advised, and I can cite a reference, I'll forward it the Gentoo init-script maintainer.
There are many notes on the internet to use "/var/run -> /run". Other than your help yesterday, I've not found one reference to use "../run". This suggests that the existing findable documentation is incorrect.
http://askubuntu.com/questions/57297/why-has-var-run-been-migrated-to-run
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/267752
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-unsolved-problem-of-the-init-scripts
http://askubuntu.com/questions/57297/why-has-var-run-been-migrated-to-run
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/267752
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-unsolved-problem-of-the-init-scripts
Unfortunately, so far I am unable to find any canonical (offical) (not the Ubuntu Canonical!) Gentoo documentation on _why_ they symlink "/var/run" to "/run" instead of "../run". However, they are migrating their init scripts to use "/run" instead of "/var/run".
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list