On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:04:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 05:01:46PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > The wording of Policy 9.3.2's
> > /var/run and /var/lock may be mounted as temporary filesystems[60], so the > > init.d scripts must handle this correctly. > > only applies to init.d scripts. But init.d scripts are not the only scripts > > using /var/run. Bug#452198 is not RC if you apply this rule only to init.d > > scripts, because it provides no init.d script. > > Therefore, I propose to change the requirement so that all packages must > > support /var/run/ and /var/lock/ on temporary filesystems, and not only > > those which provide an init script. > This seems reasonable to me; I don't think we'd foreseen this being a > problem for things other than init scripts. Do you have a proposed patch > for this, or a suggestion on how it might be better written? Given that: - plenty of users will be using tmpfs for /var/run and /var/lock, so these subdirectories will be absent after boot; - you need to be root to create subdirs here; - most processes started outside of the boot sequence are not going to have root privileges (including the policy kit process in the example bug #452198) I don't think the reference to init scripts is far off. The single exception that I'm aware of that will create its own /var/run subdir as needed and doesn't require an init script is sudo. Perhaps supplementing the "init scripts must handle..." with an "any package that needs a subdir should have an init script" addresses 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. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
