Op 23-02-12 23:45, Tom Gundersen schreef:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Damjangdam...@gmail.com wrote:
g:
* /var/run is a symlink (created on boot) to /run. This should be
changed in the future so the symlink is shipped with the filesystem
package, but we have not figured out the
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Christian Stadegaart
e-m...@bewust-leven.nl wrote:
What exactly is bind-mounted? Current mount information shows:
/run on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
I presume this is a bind-mount?
Correct.
So what you're saying is that I should
Currently we have the following:
* /var/run is a symlink (created on boot) to /run. This should be
changed in the future so the symlink is shipped with the filesystem
package, but we have not figured out the transtion yet.
How would that work with systemd where /run is bind mounted on
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Damjan gdam...@gmail.com wrote:
g:
* /var/run is a symlink (created on boot) to /run. This should be
changed in the future so the symlink is shipped with the filesystem
package, but we have not figured out the transtion yet.
How would that work with systemd
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:55:53 +0800
郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) techlivezh...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/22 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org:
On 22/02/12 12:24, 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) wrote:
Due to /var/run now is a tmp filesystem, so the path /var/run/* should
not be packaged anymore. Instead, rc.script
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu wrote:
The package-owner it 'filesystem'. But I disagree with the proposal because
I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with...
(1) /var/run is a symlink, not a separate FS and (2) initscripts should
accomplish the
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:33:24 +0100
Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu wrote:
The package-owner it 'filesystem'. But I disagree with the proposal because
I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with...
(1) /var/run is
On Feb 22, 2012 7:05 PM, Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:33:24 +0100
Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu
wrote:
The package-owner it 'filesystem'. But I disagree with the proposal
because
Due to /var/run now is a tmp filesystem, so the path /var/run/* should
not be packaged anymore. Instead, rc.script should take care aware
create needed /var/run stuff. Otherwise, there are a missing wraning
while running pacman -Qk.
2012/2/22 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org:
On 22/02/12 12:24, 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) wrote:
Due to /var/run now is a tmp filesystem, so the path /var/run/* should
not be packaged anymore. Instead, rc.script should take care aware
create needed /var/run stuff. Otherwise, there are a missing
2012/2/22 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) techlivezh...@gmail.com:
2012/2/22 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org:
On 22/02/12 12:24, 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) wrote:
Due to /var/run now is a tmp filesystem, so the path /var/run/* should
not be packaged anymore. Instead, rc.script should take care aware
create
11 matches
Mail list logo
