On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 27/05/11 10:59, Roger Leigh escribió:
> >On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >>(In particular, I'm thinking about creating /var/run and /var/lock
> >>symlinks even if they are provided as directories in
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 27/05/11 10:59, Roger Leigh escribió:
> >On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >>Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
> >>initial install.
> >>
> >>Assuming that I manage
El 27/05/11 10:59, Roger Leigh escribió:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
initial install.
Assuming that I manage to do the same in a different way, it would be
ok for you, right?
Absolutely.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
> initial install.
>
> Assuming that I manage to do the same in a different way, it would be
> ok for you, right?
Absolutely.
> (In particular, I'm thinking abo
Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
initial install.
Assuming that I manage to do the same in a different way, it would be
ok for you, right?
(In particular, I'm thinking about creating /var/run and /var/lock
symlinks even if they are provided as directories ins
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:16:20PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > [ Note: Thanks a lot for the patch and sorry for not answering before ].
> >
> > El 26/05/11 16:37, Roger Leigh escribió:
> > >@@ -32,8 +33,6 @@
> > > var/lib/dpkg
> >
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> [ Note: Thanks a lot for the patch and sorry for not answering before ].
>
> El 26/05/11 16:37, Roger Leigh escribió:
> >@@ -32,8 +33,6 @@
> > var/lib/dpkg
> > var/lib/misc
> > var/local
> > -var/lock
> > var/log
> > -var/run
> >
[ Note: Thanks a lot for the patch and sorry for not answering before ].
El 26/05/11 16:37, Roger Leigh escribió:
@@ -32,8 +33,6 @@
var/lib/dpkg
var/lib/misc
var/local
-var/lock
var/log
-var/run
var/spool
var/tmp
So, you propose that base-files des not contain var/lock or var/run
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:52:05PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> There are four possible upgrade/install paths to consider:
>
> 1) squeeze→wheezy upgrade (normal system)
> 2) squeeze→wheezy upgrade (chroot)
> 3) clean wheezy install (normal system)
> 4) clean wheezy install (chroot)
>
> With /run b
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 01:57:04PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I feel that we are relying too much on base-files for no particular
> > > reason. In fact, I don't see any benefit of having /run in base-files
> > > at this point.
> >
> > The main need for this is debootstrap. There's two poss
> > I feel that we are relying too much on base-files for no particular
> > reason. In fact, I don't see any benefit of having /run in base-files
> > at this point.
>
> The main need for this is debootstrap. There's two possible ways
> initscripts can handle the migration:
>
> 1) Normal system
>
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Just FYI, initscripts has now entered unstable to introduce /run
> > support. If you would like to re-introduce /run into base-files
> > that would be great.
> >
> > There will be a win
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Just FYI, initscripts has now entered unstable to introduce /run
> support. If you would like to re-introduce /run into base-files
> that would be great.
>
> There will be a window of potential breakage if base-files is
> upgraded prior to initscripts an
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, I added /run and this is what happened:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/621036
>
> Apparently, "it was stupid for base-files to ship /run without it
> being useable", and the bug is reassigned to base-files.
>
> Does this mean I a
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, I added /run and this is what happened:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/621036
>
> Apparently, "it was stupid for base-files to ship /run without it
> being useable", and the bug is reassigned to base-files.
>
> Does this mean I a
Well, I added /run and this is what happened:
http://bugs.debian.org/621036
Apparently, "it was stupid for base-files to ship /run without it
being useable", and the bug is reassigned to base-files.
Does this mean I am supposed to setup /run as well?
That would be completely crazy!
Please advis
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:50:47PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > If we are going to make an exception to the
> > FHS, could you please amend policy accordingly? (cloning this report
> > and reassigning the clone to debian-policy would be a good start).
>
> I'll make a patch documenting the exce
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:35:03AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Hi Santiago,
> * If I add /run to base-files, what would prevent anyone from
> submitting a bug report against base-files saying "this is a
> FHS/policy violation"?
This isn't strictly an FHS violation, from what I understand and hav
Ok, now that the patch has "stabilized", some questions:
* If I add /run to base-files, what would prevent anyone from
submitting a bug report against base-files saying "this is a
FHS/policy violation"? If we are going to make an exception to the
FHS, could you please amend policy accordingly? (cl
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:27:01PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:40:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:43:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Attached is a patch for adding a new top-level directory, /run.
> > >
> > > References:
> > > http://th
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:40:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:43:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Attached is a patch for adding a new top-level directory, /run.
> >
> > References:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/146976
> > https://lwn.net
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:43:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Attached is a patch for adding a new top-level directory, /run.
>
> References:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/146976
> https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/
>
> This has already been adopted by Fedora, and it's
Package: base-files
Version: 6.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi Santiago,
Attached is a patch for adding a new top-level directory, /run.
References:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/146976
https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/
This has already been adopted by Fedora, and it'
23 matches
Mail list logo
