On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:38:41PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > is there any possibility > > of putting it under /lib/run or /boot/early-writable-fs instead of > > introducing a new directory on / that's of very limited use? > That is certainly possible, but I don't see anything wrong with putting > it at the top level either. > FWIW I asked Chris Yeoh for his opinion on the name and he said that > /run sounded preferable to both /etc/run and /lib/run.
Mmm; privately asking someone who works on the FHS is a different thing to asking on the FHS lists, or actually talking to our users. Claiming support from the FHS guys on the basis of a conversation with Chris doesn't seem appropriate; anymore than "-policy support" would be an appropriate claim if Manoj had said it looked okay. I note the FHS's limited definition of /lib (essential libraries and kernel modules) is already incorrect for /lib/udev, /lib/lsb/init-functions, /lib/linux-sound-base, /lib/terminfo, /lib/alsa, /lib/alsa-utils, /lib/discover and /lib/init. Especially given our use of /usr/lib, it seems the most suitable dumping ground for random stuff like /run; and a far better one than / itself. > > > I do not count "It's ugly!" as a strong reason. > > You should; especially since it seems solvable by hiding it in /lib > > alongside /lib/modules. > The problem is that some people find /lib/run uglier than /run. ;) That's okay; there's normally a much larger burden for creating a directory in / than one elsewhere. A possible concern is people seeing /run and thinking "ah, there's a directory I can use for stuff", and having it be used instead of /var/run or $TMPDIR or /var/lib or /var/cache for things it's not appropriate for. It seems to me that /run has /very/ limited use, so should be kept out of the way. It'd be nice to have /misc and /usr/misc instead of having package dirs mixed in with lib*.so, but then, it'd be nice to call it /cnf instead of /etc too... *shrug* Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
