The submitter of #344758 wrote:
> The script should create /var/run/dirmngr to allow users to map their
> /var/run to a temporary filesystem like tmpfs. Thanks.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> What do you think about this request? It seems reasonable, but I think if
> this should be supported, there o
Steve Langasek wrote:
> That's fine; I'm just saying that there's not much point in telling people
> to *not* ship /var/run (or subdirectories thereof) in their package.
Well, there is the slight point that if you ship /var/run/foo in your
package, you (a) probably use /var/run/foo just assuming
[Thomas Hood]
> Would it be useful if the initscript that clears /var/run also
> created a directory hierarchy under /var/run?
I cannot fathom how telling someone else to do a particular 'mkdir -p'
and 'chown' could possibly be simpler than putting the 'mkdir -p' and
'chown' into your init script
Would it be useful if the initscript that clears /var/run also created
a directory hierarchy under /var/run?
(There are different ways of implementing thus, but we can talk about
details if this feature is deemed worthwhile.)
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
[Steve Langasek]
> That's fine; I'm just saying that there's not much point in telling
> people to *not* ship /var/run (or subdirectories thereof) in their
> package.
Hmm, it should be noted that if you do remove /var/run/foo from your
package, you need to make sure the postrm deletes the directo
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:44:35AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > BUT, if you do, don't ship /var/run inside the deb.
> > > > Why?
> > > Because:
> > > 1. It will go away on reboot and if your service isn't enabled, it won't
> > >
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > BUT, if you do, don't ship /var/run inside the deb.
> > > Why?
>
> > Because:
>
> > 1. It will go away on reboot and if your service isn't enabled, it won't
> > be re-created. dpkg will still think it should be there, however.
>
> And what
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:07:58AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:43:57PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > >
> > > Do it. We are *heavly* considering support for ephemeral /var/run (which
> > > is
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:43:57PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >
> > Do it. We are *heavly* considering support for ephemeral /var/run (which is
> > orthogonal to /run or anything else in that topic), so you might as well do
> > it now
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:43:57PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Peter Eisentraut]
> > > What do you think about this request? It seems reasonable, but I
> [...]
> > This issue was mentioned in the /run discussion we just had on this
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Peter Eisentraut]
> > What do you think about this request? It seems reasonable, but I
[...]
> This issue was mentioned in the /run discussion we just had on this
> list. I'm in favor of forcing all init scripts to mkdir -p
Do it. We are *heavly
[Peter Eisentraut]
> What do you think about this request? It seems reasonable, but I
> think if this should be supported, there ought to be a general policy
> (formal or informal) on it because I think many other init scripts
> will suffer from similar problems.
This issue was mentioned in the
What do you think about this request? It seems reasonable, but I think if
this should be supported, there ought to be a general policy (formal or
informal) on it because I think many other init scripts will suffer from
similar problems.
-- Forwarded message --
Subject: Bug#3
13 matches
Mail list logo
