On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> 2011/4/1 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
>> So please try to be constructive and respectful in your responses.
>
> Let me step in here as the Fedora Project Leader and end this thread.
Please note that I quoted Jóhann here as an example of good pr
2011/4/1 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> So please try to be constructive and respectful in your responses.
Let me step in here as the Fedora Project Leader and end this thread.
If you've got legitimate technical concerns with the implementation of
the /run directory, please open another thread and ke
On 04/01/2011 03:32 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious
>> > what adjectives you think of next.
> Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works.
I'm not sure what is the cause for this hatred you seem to have b
Am 01.04.2011 05:32, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>> So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious
>> what adjectives you think of next
> Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works
well, what have you ever done in your poor life?
please creep away an
Am 01.04.2011 05:32, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
> On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious
>> what adjectives you think of next.
> Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works.
You are not only
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > The system. dracut, systemd, udev, and so on -- which all are components
> > of the OS.
> All applications.
Ralf, did anybody already asked you what do you understand under the t
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:22:14PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >> Applications must never create or require special files or
> > >> subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
> > >> hiera
On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
Applications must never create or require special files or
subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
hierarchy provide more than enou
On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
> >>
> >> Applications must never create or require special files or
> >> subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
> >> hierarchy provide more than enough flexibility for any package.
> >>
> >
> > Well, w
On 03/30/2011 04:12 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 04:05:27 PM Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03
On 03/30/2011 03:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Also, can somebody point me to the plac
Am 31.03.2011 01:38, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> /etc is static configuration data.
>
> There are a number of things under /etc that are not static
> configuration data.
>
>> /etc is read-only during boot.
>>
>> /run is writable all the way.
>
> /etc/run
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> I think the problem here is how this was done, not as much what was
> done. Would it have been so much trouble to have discussed this in
> advance?
... it is way more efficient to beg forgiveness for picking a colour
for a bikeshed than solic
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
>
Sou
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:42:11AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 00:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > What more would you want? "Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
> > > follow' means that if you don't follow it
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> /etc is static configuration data.
There are a number of things under /etc that are not static
configuration data.
> /etc is read-only during boot.
>
> /run is writable all the way.
/etc/run could be too.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Adminis
On Wed, 30.03.11 21:08, Colin Watson (cjwat...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> > So, I'd like to correct myself: "Ubuntu has agreed" to "To me it appears
> > that they will do it".
>
> If you need somebody who works on Ubuntu for Canonical to support this,
> I'm happy to be such a person. Supporting /var/r
On Wed, 30.03.11 12:41, David Lutterkort (lut...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:30 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > > There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
> > > defined by FHS and even though we have asked them t
On Wed, 30.03.11 16:24, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
> > How about /var/run ??
> >
> > What would be wrong with it?
>
> I believe the need is for something guaranteed to be on the root
> filesystem, and having a separate /var is still valid
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:39, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>> It is outside of the FHS,
> >> It's a clear violati
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>> It is outside of the FHS,
> >> It's a clear violation of the FHS.
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
> How about /var/run ??
>
> What would be wrong with it?
I believe the need is for something guaranteed to be on the root
filesystem, and having a separate /var is still valid.
I'm not sure why this doesn't go under /etc, but if I were king, the
proliferat
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:03:22PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Right, but devs should ignore it or feel tempted to rape such a standard.
Use of the word "rape" in this context has entirely inappropriate
connotations. Please don't use it in this way.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
David Lutterkort wrote:
> How do changes to the FHS actually happen ?
see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6704952
> All I can find is the names
> of the three past editors of the standard, and a mailing list that seems
> to be overrun by spam.
Someone should ask matti or
On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> It is outside of the FHS,
>> It's a clear violation of the FHS.
>
> Indeed, but there really is no suitable FHS-compliant location
On 03/30/2011 07:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
>
> It's a fair
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 22:25 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2011/3/30 Adam Williamson :
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
> >> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2011 04:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski said:
>> First, people are wondering if this change is compatible with some
>> obsolete specification, next people are wondering if this change is
>> compatible with dist
Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski said:
> First, people are wondering if this change is compatible with some
> obsolete specification, next people are wondering if this change is
> compatible with distribution feature process. I repeat again, this is
> not a feature this is evolution. Lennart us
W dniu 30 marca 2011 22:30 użytkownik drago01 napisał:
> 2011/3/30 Michał Piotrowski :
>> 2011/3/30 Adam Williamson :
>>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>>>
Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
everyone equally follow suit on the
2011/3/30 Michał Piotrowski :
> 2011/3/30 Adam Williamson :
>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
>>> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
>>> in Fedora land.
>>
>> Wel
2011/3/30 Adam Williamson :
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>
>> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
>> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
>> in Fedora land.
>
> Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. We have
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 13:54, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
> > With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
> > folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
> >
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
> How do changes to the FHS actually happen ? All I can find is the names
> of the three past editors of the standard, and a mailing list that seems
> to be overrun by spam.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any body/group that meets regularly t
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:30 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
> > defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
> > it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
> >
John Reiser wrote:
> Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
I'm a little fuzzy on the timelines of these changes so I might be one
release off, but here's two examples.
-Fedora 10 changed curl from using openssl to nss.
-Fedora 14 changed openldap from using
On 03/31/2011 12:09 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Sure, and the distribution in question does such changes - via its
> packaging guidelines.
It might be obvious to you that this change requires a packaging
guideline but that requirement is not well documented and is not
mandated by what you are quo
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 00:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > What more would you want? "Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
> > follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?"
>
> But FHS permits this change to be done by distribut
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 20:30 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> so please do the better things instead flaming here about a
> single folder which introducing is not political correct enough
> for your eyes
Um, you seem to be misreading the thread. I'm not opposing the change.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora
Am 30.03.2011 20:44, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> What more would you want? "Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
>> follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?"
>
> But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions. All it
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> What more would you want? "Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
>> follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?"
>
> But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions
On 03/31/2011 12:01 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> What more would you want? "Fedora packages must follow the FHS. 'Must
> follow' means that if you don't follow it you violate it?"
But FHS permits this change to be done by distributions. All it says is
that it should be carefully considered.
Ra
On 03/31/2011 12:00 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> so please do the better things instead flaming here about a
> single folder which introducing is not political correct enough
> for your eyes
Pretty sure you completely misunderstood Adam Williamson. He has not
flamed anybody.
Rahul
--
devel ma
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 20:16 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
>> FHS does not require every RPM package to not add arbitrary
>> directories, but Fedora packaging guidelines do. We have a packaging
>> standard. This change violates that packa
Am 30.03.2011 20:01, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
>
> I have better things to do than spend my morning looking through old
> changelogs and freeze dates, thanks. Are you really suggesting it's
> never happened?
if you ha
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 20:16 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> FHS does not require every RPM package to not add arbitrary
> directories, but Fedora packaging guidelines do. We have a packaging
> standard. This change violates that packaging standard, so there are
> three possibilities:
Can you cit
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 11:16 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 11:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
> >>> of times, to simply go ahe
On 03/30/2011 11:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
>> On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
>>> of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
>>> have been 'fe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 11:19 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
>>
>> So we should disband FESCo and just let everyone commit whatever changes
>> they want without oversight or community inclusion and just hope it builds
>> and runs in the end?
>
> Yes, I am su
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 23:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 11:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> >> Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
> > I have better things to do than spend my morning l
On 03/30/2011 07:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
>
> It's a fairly
On 03/30/2011 11:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
>> Please give specific examples that previously evaded the 'feature' process.
> I have better things to do than spend my morning looking through old
> changelogs and freeze dates, thanks. Are you
On 03/30/2011 11:19 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
>
> So we should disband FESCo and just let everyone commit whatever changes
> they want without oversight or community inclusion and just hope it builds
> and runs in the end?
Yes, I am sure that is the best course of action. Can you cut out the
need
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
> > of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
> > have been 'features', not submit them as features, and happily
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 12:49 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:24:42AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> >
> > > Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
> > > everyone equally follow suit on
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> however, a little concerned with the precedence it is either creating or
> following in the path of.
This has behind is something IMHO bigger than FESCo: the agreement of
key maintainers across distros. That's hard enough to pull -- and it's
a
On 03/30/2011 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots
> of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_
> have been 'features', not submit them as features, and happily bypass
> the entire 'feature' process with all its bureaucracy
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:24:42AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>
> > Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
> > everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
> > in Fedora land.
>
>
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> There are many directories already in Fedora that are not defined by FHS
> and even though we have asked them to update it (libexec, /selinux
> /sys etc), there is noone maintaining it.
FWIW, libexec can be argued not to be a violation of the current FHS,
because the FH
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
> in Fedora land.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. We have a features process with lots
of burea
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:16 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> Heya,
> >>
> >> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> >> directory /run in the root directory. Most
Am 30.03.2011 13:54, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
>
dracut and ud
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
On behalf of everyone at anaconda, thanks for fixing something we've all
lon
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 09:35, Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
>> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
>> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
>> in Fedora
On Wed, 30.03.11 13:54, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
> With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
> folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
> introducing /run as well.
I guess I need to clarify this. Ubuntu actually
On Wed, 30.03.11 09:35, Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see
> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done
> in Fedora land.
Well, the technical change is actually minimal, and this i
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, this is what is implemented for F15 now. For F16 we will make a
> minor change on top of this: /var/run and /var/lock will become symlinks
> to /run (resp /run/lock), so that we don't have to use bind mounts
> anymore which
On Wed, 30.03.11 19:56, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2011 07:00 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> > This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
> > fields of LSB, FHS and LANANA to make sure there are traceable
> > paths for such requests. Post the URLs to your b
On 03/30/2011 07:00 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
> fields of LSB, FHS and LANANA to make sure there are traceable
> paths for such requests. Post the URLs to your bugs in the
> LSB / LF tracker if you assert you have done such
http://sourcef
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 04:05:27 PM Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> With this upload Fedora and Suse have already adopted /run now. Debian
> folks will suggest this for their coming release. Ubuntu has agreed with
> introducing /run as well.
Bravo!
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:03, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
> > I also don't think you can really justify the "massive" qualifier in your
> > assertion. The actual text of the (7 year old) FHS has this to say:
> 7 year old doesn't mean obsolete and doesn't mean to adopt any crack
> ridden
Russ herrold wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
>> defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
>> it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
>> it.
> This is stunningly untrue. I've w
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
> defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
> it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
> it.
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
fie
On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
>
> > Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> > other directories be
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > It is outside of the FHS,
> It's a clear violation of the FHS.
Indeed, but there really is no suitable FHS-compliant location for files
of these types, so we had no choice but to vio
On 03/30/2011 02:08 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>
>> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
>> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't fi
Am 30.03.2011 15:05, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>> No flames from me. This is a sensible, thought-through change with
>> cross-distro buy-in and no major downsides.
>
> I could not disagree more.
without any argument?
if all distributions agree with it where exactly do you have
a problem? After 7
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS comp
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> The actual code changes we needed to implement this scheme were trivial
>> (basically, just bind mount /var/run and /var/lock instead of mounting two
>> new tmpfs' to them.), which
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:36:38AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> No flames from me. This is a sensible, thought-through change with
> cross-distro buy-in and no major downsides. It is outside of the FHS, but is
> in the _spirit_ of it, and would fit into an updated release of the
> standard, if th
On 03/30/2011 02:42 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 01:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd int
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
> The FHS is about having major distros agree about file locations, and
> documenting the result. Which seems to be exactly what happened here.
Well, documentation on a mailing list is fine for F15, but it really
doesn't count long-term. If
Le Mer 30 mars 2011 14:30, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
>
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
%<
Applications must never create or require spe
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:11 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
> >> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>> Heya,
> >>>
> >>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which
> establishes a
> >>> dir
Le Mer 30 mars 2011 14:04, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>
> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Heya,
>>
>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
>> stumble over it, so here's
On 03/30/2011 01:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
>>> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
directory /run in the
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:30:40PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
More than that, it's explicitly allowed. So we
On 03/30/2011 06:00 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
Added to the release notes
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docu
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS compliant.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE2
Applications must never create o
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 01:54:30 PM Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The actual code changes we needed to implement this scheme were trivial
> (basically, just bind mount /var/run and /var/lock instead of mounting two
> new tmpfs' to them.), which is why we opted to do this so late in the F15
> cy
On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2011 05:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> Heya,
> >>
> >> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> >> directory /run in the root di
On 03/30/2011 05:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Heya,
>>
>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
>> stumble over it, so here's an explan
Ralf Corsepius wote:
> It's a massive FHS violation
>
> => release blocker.
who cares ? also /cgroup /selinux /sys /debug ...
FHS is frozen since seven years ago.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Heya,
>>
>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
>> stumble over it, so here's an explan
On Wed, 30.03.11 14:04, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Heya,
> >
> > I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> > directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> > stumb
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
>> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>>> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
>>>
2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius :
> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Heya,
>>
>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
>> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
