Rex Dieter wrote: > Jan Pazdziora wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> the page >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d >> >> suggests to specify /run/%{name}/ directories and files in %files and >> then says >> >> Files placed in the subdirectories may be listed the same way >> or omitted entirely as the files will be cleaned up on every >> reboot. >> >> I assume it talks about subdirectories of that /run/%{name}/. >> >> However, how about subdirectories like /run/lock/%{name}/ ? >> >> In Fedora base container images, the /run is empty. So when you try to >> do >> >> FROM fedora:23 >> RUN dnf install -y package-which-puts-something-to-run-lock >> >> it will fail because there is no /run/lock there. An example is >> opencryptoki and >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341079 >> >> What is the policy about specifying /run/lock/ (and in general >> /run/otherdirs/) subdirectories in %files? >> >> Could the guideline be amended to explicitly say that anything under >> /run/ which is not under /run/%{name}/ should not be listed in %files? > > I've always been of the firm opinion that in general all files should be > "owned", e.g. that rpm -q -f /path/too/foo can tell you the owner. So, I > would argue against the amendment you suggest. > > Offhand, what seems to be the real problem here is the lack of /run/lock > in > the container images. I'd consider that a bug worth fixing. Is that not > possible? To expand on that, one fix would be to ensure /run/lock is "owned", currently it is not. filesystem owns /var/lock, /var/run and /run, so adding /run/lock there too could be a possibility. -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
