Hi Ingo, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:08:56PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Jeff Licquia wrote on Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:23:11PM -0400:
> > So, we should specify /run in the FHS and leave /run/user as an > > implementation detail for the XDG spec. > > Does that sound about right? > As long as /run is specified as optional (as opposed to required), > that sounds fine. Treating any such directory as "optional" undermines the utility of the FHS. As I've pointed out in another thread, the only things that are "optional" in the current FHS are subsystems that may be absent from the system - there are no directories in the standard which allow for implementors to put the indicated contents somewhere else (with the exception that architecture-independent shared data is allowed to be shipped in a per-application directory under /usr/lib instead of /usr/share). Now, backwards-compatibility symlinks (or bind mounts) are perfectly fine, such that the same contents are exposed under two directoriese. If early-boot writable filesystems are irrelevant to the OpenBSD implementation, the FHS allows for /run and /var/run to be symlinked together. But the point is that they *would* need to be symlinked, so that software relying on this provision of the FHS can access data via /run as needed instead of having to work out whether the current system is one that ensures /var is mounted early enough. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
