On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:29:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Would anybody object to Roger patch being applied without the reference to > > /run/shm, and leave this particular topic to another bug report ? > > > Beside, I attach an alternative patch by Thomas Hood that I found in the > > log but which was not send to the list. > > One concern I have about this patch is that it replaces references to > /var/run and /var/lock with /run and /run/lock, but the only explanation > that /run should be used in place of /var/run is in a non-normative > footnote. So we've effectively lifted the prohibition on shipping files > under /var/run with this change, which isn't really what we want.
Do you mean that the FHS restricts the use of /var/run but says nothing of /run, so we need to state that FHS restriction for /var/run apply to /run now ? > Should it be spelled out in the normative bits of policy that packages > "should" use /run for anything that the FHS says should be in /var/run, and > that packages must not ship files under any of /run, /var/run, or /var/lock? Probably yes. However a new FHS version might fix that for us. I like to move on with this bug and upload policy 3.9.3, so unless a new wording is proposed soon I wonder whether we should not settle on the last patch and open a new bug for improvement. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
