On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 06:43:02PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > + replacement for <file>/var/run</file>, and its > > > + subdirectory <file>/run/lock</file> is a replacement > > > for > > > + <file>/var/lock</file>. These changes have been > > > + adopted by most distributions and have been proposed > > > + for inclusion in a future revision of the FHS. Both > > > + are expected to be temporary filesystems, whose > > > > Reading this text, my understanding is that /run/lock should be a separate > > temporary filesystem (on top of /run). I would prefer if we not explicitly > > added > > that to policy and only say that /run is expected to be a temporary file > > system. > > > > Other than that, the proposed text looks fine too me and has my seconds. > > After discussion with Michael and others on IRC, I've attached an > updated patch which just rewords the bit about "temporary filesystems" > slightly to clarify the above, making it less ambiguous whether there > are one or two filesystems (we refer just to /run and not to > /run/lock when describing the use of a temporary filesystem). Note > that the use of a temporary filesystem is a "should", so does permit > systems to implement /run using a normal filesystem.
Hello Roger, I think the /run implementatio has progressed far enough to update policy. Your last patch was relative to a previous one. Could you regenerate it relative to current policy and seconders be so kind as to resecond the result ? Thanks, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110528185312.GD5187@yellowpig
