On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:33:24 +0100 Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The package-owner it 'filesystem'. But I disagree with the proposal because > > I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with... > > > (1) /var/run is a symlink, not a separate FS and (2) initscripts should > > accomplish the minimum required operations and should mount only absolutely > > necessary FS (not /tmp, /media or the like). > > Currently we have the following: > * /var/run is a symlink (created on boot) to /run. This should be > changed in the future so the symlink is shipped with the filesystem > package, but we have not figured out the transtion yet. Ah, OK my information seems to be old. But fs package (2011.12) used to have a symlink, right? Why was this changed? > * /run is a tmpfs, so if packages contain files in /var/run or in > /run, they will not survive a reboot. They should use the tmpfiles > mechanisem which we added for this purpose. > * traditionally rc.sysinit deleted the contents of /var/run, > /var/lock and /tmp on boot, we have now a simpler and cleaner > situation since /var/run and /var/lock are on tmpfs. We did not force > /tmp to be on tmpfs as it does not matter from the point of view of > early boot. /media is probably going away in the long-run anyway, but > does at any rate not have anything to do with boot, so no danger of > that being touched. > > -t -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature