On Monday, 12. September 2011 12:42:00 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me and > > one > > other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on -dev. I was > > pretty sure it was and then another person posted they read the same. > > So, I'm almost certain it was said at this point. Surely we can't > > both be wrong. > Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own > partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in > its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be > supported in the future?
Just have a look in /var/lib/* for example. You guarantee, that nothing of this stuff is or will be needed by udev? > The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be > symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this > sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the > recommended setup. Yes. Until this dev has his next brilliant idea. > Saying that proposing /run and /lock to be available at boot time > Damn, this list is like crack. For sure :) > Regards everyone. Best, Michael
