On Fri, 01.07.11 13:30, Jeff Licquia ([email protected]) wrote: > - "It is valid to implement /var/run as a symlink to /run." True? > Too bold? Too specific?
On Fedora /var/run is now a symlink to /run. So it's definitely true... ;-) > - /var/run/utmp is explicitly mentioned in FHS 2.3. After looking at > Fedora 15, I decided it should stay there, since there's no /run/utmp > there. I figure that having /run/utmp via symlinking /var/run to /run > is OK, even though not explicitly mentioned, so there should be no > issues. OTOH, do we want to encourage people to move utmp? Hmm? On F15 there is a /run/utmp. > - I've added explicit rules forbidding use of both /run and /var/run > by programs, to prevent confusion. My thought is that a program should > either use /run or /var/run. Can anyone think of a good reason why a > program would want to use both? Well, for example because they use /run for all its own uses but to access utmp it uses _PATH_UTMPX, which will most likely still point to /var/run/utmp. Such a use of both /run and /var/run should definitely be acceptable. Other comments: "(removed or truncated as appropriate)" ← what do you mean by "truncated"? Everything should just go, nothing should be truncated. "... should be unwritable for unprivileged users (root or users running daemons)" ← that's easy to misunderstand? "Process identifier (PID) files, which were originally placed in <filename>/etc</filename>" ← /etc? Do you mean /var/run? A bit later you then talk of /var/run/crond.pid which should be /run/crond.pid. "System programs that maintain transient UNIX-domain sockets must place them in this directory." ← Or in a subdirectory beneath it. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
