On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Mostly I'm interested in avoiding surprises and having code that isn't
> married to the weirdness of any particular version of any particular
> distribution. And I found this to be pretty surprising, given that I
That's always difficult, as distributions all have their own quirks. We
have some semblance of a standard in the LSB, but it's not strongly
adhered to by any distro. For file locations in specific, there is the
FHS (see http://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/fhs/fhs.html for latest
draft), and while I think it could be a little more clear on /tmp,
there are no promises of anything other than that /tmp must be
available to programs — and that programs can't count on data there to
be preserved. I think it's clear that /var/lib/{something} is a better
match.
Of course, with some degree of irony, providing a defacto standard base
across Linux distributions is, I think, one of the goals of the
upstream project — and, whatever you may think of it, as measured by
distribution adoption, that seems to be _more_ successful in practice
than any previous standarization effort. So, with an eye to the future,
"do what systemd suggests" is, really, not your worst option.
> could see the file in /tmp and could read the code that was looking
> there. So, from the point of view of writing portable code, how
> should something handle this to run on any unix-like system?
Do exactly what twiki does — provide a configuration option.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
