Am Mittwoch, dem 04.10.2023 um 12:47 +0200 schrieb Vivien Kraus: > According to > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/merge_requests/3101, glib > now searches for the session bus socket in runstatedir. The dbus > service must > thus have its socket in /run/dbus. > > For interoperability with the dbus standard, /run/dbus is also > symlinked to > /var/run/dbus. > > * gnu/services/dbus.scm (dbus-activation): Symlink /run/dbus to > /var/run/dbus. > (%dbus-accounts): Run dbus in /run/dbus. > (dbus-root-service-type): Save the pid file in /run/dbus. > --- > > Le jeudi 05 octobre 2023 à 06:41 +0200, Liliana Marie Prikler a écrit > : > > > I’m still concerned about doing a symlink in the activation > > > function. > > > What if we activate a new system from an existing one? Won’t the > > > symlink > > > fail? I think we should preemptively delete /var/run/dbus and > > > make a new > > > symlink every time. But I could be wrong, maybe this is not > > > needed. > > > > > > What do you think? > > If we go this route, I think we should first check whether > > /var/run/dbus is indeed a symlink to /run/dbus and move the > > existing files if not before deleting the directory and creating > > the symlink. But before that, we should try to symlink, which will > > fail with EEXIST if the file already exists, regardless of whether > > it's a symlink – thereafter you can check the cause of this failure > > through lstat. > > I changed my mind! I now think it is OK for the system reconfigure to > fail if a different symlink already exists. Perhaps, but it's not okay to fail if it's a regular directory. We should move those!
Cheers
