On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:58:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Note that this version of the patch explicitly says that packages "should" > use /run and /run/lock in preference to /var/run and /var/lock. My > understanding is that this is where we want to go, but if this is > premature, that paragraph can easily be removed for now without changing > the substance of the rest of this change.
Seconded (with this change). For wheezy, packages can use /run only with the appropriate dependency on initscripts (to ensure its presence and writability), which means that in general it's advisable to continue to use the old paths, which are guaranteed to be available at all points during a wheezy upgrade. There's also cross- distribution/OS compatibility to consider; since the old paths continue to be avilable on all systems, that may well be the better choice. So I think that it might be OK for wheezy+1, but is probably premature at this point. For wheezy, we've only migrated packages using non-standard locations such as /lib/init/rw, /dev/.xxx and /dev/shm/.xxx etc., and left packages using /var/run and /var/lock alone. They are however at liberty to migrate individually should they wish to add the appropriate initscripts dependency and switch their paths over. But I would generally just advise waiting for wheezy+1 and switching the paths without the dependency--the files will already be present in both locations at that point. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
