On Feb 22, 2012 7:05 PM, "Leonid Isaev" <lisaev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? No, it was only in svn, but had to revert it until we figure out the upgrade path. > > * /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
