Chris Staub wrote:
The /dev/shm mount point for tmpfs is included to allow enabling POSIX-shared memory. The kernel must have the required support built into it for this to work (more about this is in the next section).
IMO, the second sentence is redundant as tmpfs support is also required for Udev.
Please note that very little software currently uses POSIX-shared memory. Therefore, consider the /dev/shm mount point optional.
Has anyone done a grep of LFS and BLFS packages to see whether, in the last two and a bit years, they're taking advantage of /dev/shm?
I don't really know much of anything about the subject myself, but it seems strange that it says /dev/shm is "optional" when it's described as required during the LFS system build. Is that paragraph simply out-of-date?
I really don't know why we mark it as optional now. It costs nothing (as stated above, the kernel already needs tmpfs support anyway) and gains a feature. Why, exactly, would someone *not* want /dev/shm mounted?
Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
