Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > There aren't any technical differences between the first two options.
I agree with that. > Each of the solutions has a degree of ugliness -- in the first case, > the ugliness is in violating the "no new directories in /" rule and > making /run/ifstate seem more important than /etc/network/ifstate or > /var/run/ifstate would be; in the second, it's in having to introduce > a new subdirectory name to separate the variable parts of /lib out; in > the third, it's the system specific ugliness of having to ensure /var > is mounted early. That's not the ugliness that I care about with /lib/run; the uglyness that I care about is that it's introducing /var content into /lib, which feels like a serious violation of the spirit of the FHS to me (yes, we're already violating the letter, but only because there's no /share and /lib is essentially a merger of /lib and /share). /run is not equivalent to /var/lib; it's equivalent to /var/run, which is not at all a lib directory to me. But it's all just aesthetics. > (TBH, I'd be much happier just making the technical changes necessary to > ensure /var is mounted early -- keeps the filesystem sane, and it's just > a simple matter of programming, rather than arguing over what's ugly. Yeah, I agree with this too. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]