On Sun, 8 May 2011 21:53:51 -0400 (EDT) R P Herrold <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Karl Goetz wrote: > > > I'd suggest we should explicitly require that its contents are not > > persistent, considering the proposed uses for it. > > and that was the point of the earlier thread --- This is ** > not ** something which NEEDS to be mandated, and so from which > a standards organization point of view, rather one in which to > permit 'local options' This earlier thread [1] i assume (found via your first post so i assume this is it). I think i can see where you are coming from, so i won't be too fussed either way. Thats largely because I was under the impression that it would not contain state useful for debugging, so i can't see why you would want to retain it. If i'm wrong on that then sure, leave its treatment optional. kk [1] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2011-April/006761.html -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
