Hi Jeff, Jeff Licquia wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 01:30:47PM -0400:
> I've got some proposed wording for /run in. You can see the change here: > > http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/loggerhead/lsb/devel/fhs-spec/revision/36 > > It's basically the wording for /var/run moved over, with /var/run being > largely replaced by a few compatibility statements. I did it this way > because a lot of the concerns that people had expressed seemed to be > handled well in the /var/run wording, such as persistence across reboots. > > A few notes that might be worth some review by others: > > - I considered the BSD case for making /run optional, or moving it to > the Linux annex. The problem is that it makes the text for /var/run > really crazy; in all likelihood, /var/run would end up having to move to > the annexes as well. I don't understand how it makes the text crazy. Why not just leave the text completely untouched, and just add one single sentence to the Linux annex that allows to implement /var/run as a symlink to /run? That would not seem crazy to me at all. It even seems simpler that your proposal. > We know that there are a number of other objectionable sections in the > FHS from the BSD point of view. If and when we get a decent solution > to those problems, we can rethink the way /run happens as part of that > solution. Sure; however, what you just committed would not help to improve that situation, but rather add another item to the list of issues to be rethought. Yours, Ingo _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
