Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 10/02/2013 17:53, Dale wrote: >> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> It's probably better to leave the symlink in place for now. What >>> happens when the user installs a package they have never had before >>> and that package uses /var/run? It will make a directory which isn't >>> what you want. Better to leave the symlink in place and train your >>> eyes to ignore the elogs (something we humans are extremely good at) >> I have a question. On my rig, /var/run does not appear to be a link to >> /run. For giggles: > > > > You should re-read the elog you got when /run was created and do what it > says > > :-) > >
Actually, I had something that wouldn't start and said it needed /run. I didn't have one, found references with google that it was the new and upcoming thing, so I created it myself. So, it must have been a bug that should have been reported but I didn't realize that. By creating it myself, I created a bit of a problem. Now what to do about it. I don't see any news item or anything on it. I generally look at elogs but we know how that works. lol I guess I missed that one. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
