On Fri, 29.04.11 17:46, Greg KH (greg@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > I think /srv actually makes a lot of sense. Probably not so much on the > > > desktop, but the boundaries are blurry, and I see no reason to set > > > things up differently in this respect between servers and desktops. I > > > see little benefit in removing this directory. > > > > > > Lennart > > > > > I think moving /selinux is a bit more complicated then just a simple > > kernel change. We have libselinux changes, Lots of tools have learned > > over the years the path of /selinux and lots of users know about it. > > > > I am willing to work towards the goal of moving /selinux, but I might > > end up with a symbolic link if we can not fix all of the problems. > > A symbolic link from /selinux to point at /sys/fs/selinux/ is a good > idea to help people migrate. The startup tools should be able to create > this if /sys/fs/selinux/ is not present, right? This is not necessarily easy to do actually, since for upgraded systems /selinux needs to be an actual directory in the rootfs to be useful as mount points. At boot time the rootfs is read-only, hence removing the dir then and turning it into a symlink is difficult. However, we can use the same approach as we did for moving /var/run to /run: on new installs create it as a symlink and on upgrades simply make it a bind mount. For the long run we could also add %post scripts to filesystem.rpm which moves away the old /selinux, and recreates it as symlink. Unfortunately that cannot be done completely atomic, but that property is not really necessary here anyway I think. So, yeah, it isn't super-pretty doing this move, but we can handle it more or less exactly like the /var/run â /run move. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
