On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 28, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it is premature to tatify into policy an action that > > has not been fully decided upon, and has not yet had all the kinks > > ironed out yet. > > While I understand the use cases presented for /run; I am not > > yet convinced that the solutions are mature. We shoulkd first have a > > working solution, and present a proposal based on the working set to > > policy at that time. > I fully agree. I remember providing an alternative solution for all or > most of the problems which /run should solve, so I'm firmly opposed to > create this new, unneeded directory, which is nothing more than a > gratuitous change from other linux systems. "Gratuitous" would mean that it is a change for change's sake. The reasons for the change have been covered in detail; your willingness to dismiss them because they're not important to your own usage patterns does not make the change gratuitous. Although the FHS has greatly improved the state of affairs, the commingling of data of different types in /etc remains a blemish on the filesystem. Your repeated suggestion to "use a symlink" puts all the burden of working around this blemish on the admin, when the whole purpose of a binary distribution is to iron out these integration issues for the benefit of all. Creating a /run directory does not make the system technically inferior for any purpose, and makes it technically superior with regards to several. The only downside is that it's different from what people are currently familiar with and what existing programs expect, but there is a clear solution for maintaining backwards compatibility through a heirarchy change, one that's been used by the FHS several times before: a symlink. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgptaiKcc4cKE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
