On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:07:58AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:43:57PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > <initscripts co-maintainer hat on> > > > Do it. We are *heavly* considering support for ephemeral /var/run (which > > > is > > > orthogonal to /run or anything else in that topic), so you might as well > > > do > > > it now and make your user happy. A lot of other packages already support > > > ephemeral /var/run. > > > > > BUT, if you do, don't ship /var/run inside the deb. > > > > Why?
> Because: > 1. It will go away on reboot and if your service isn't enabled, it won't > be re-created. dpkg will still think it should be there, however. And what does that break? AFAIK, dpkg will ignore a missing directory on package removal without incident. > 2. We may deploy some auto-create-stuff-in-/var/run solution, and it WILL > clash with packages that ship /var/run and recreate it (not that I'd > expect that clash to do anything other than mkdir -p be a waste of > time -- but better safe than sorry). The /var/run directory itself *must* always exist; it has to be on the filesystem which holds /var. > Also, it makes life easier for us to track down packages that need to be > examined for lack of ephemeral /var/run support. I think you're going to need a more reliable test than this. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
