Russ Allbery writes:
> Here is an updated patch that tries to remedy those concerns. The
> requirement for /run and /run/lock is a separate point in the FHS
> exception list, and a new section under 9.1 has been added to spell out
> explicitly, for everyone, the requirements on packages that mak
Roger Leigh writes:
> 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
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 para
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:58:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Comments, objections, seconds?
Seconded.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
Hello everyone (and happy new year!),
I read through all of the discussion of this bug and reviewed the latest
patches, and I had the following concerns.
1. A lot of the discussion of /run and /run/lock was in a non-normative
footnote, but it was really normative text. It didn't fit well wedg
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:29:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Would anybody object to Roger patch being applied without the reference to
> > /run/shm, and leave this particular topic to another bug report ?
>
> > Beside, I att
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:33:23PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > At the current state, I'm not for adding /run/shm to debian-policy.
> > If we can get wider acceptance of this feature (cross-distro), then my
> > position
> > on this might
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Would anybody object to Roger patch being applied without the reference to
> /run/shm, and leave this particular topic to another bug report ?
> Beside, I attach an alternative patch by Thomas Hood that I found in the
> log but whic
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Michael Biebl wrote:
> At the current state, I'm not for adding /run/shm to debian-policy.
> If we can get wider acceptance of this feature (cross-distro), then my
> position
> on this might change. Atm this looks like a Debian-only feature with no real
> use-case why we need
BTW, my alternative patch was intended only to improve the wording,
not to change the import. I hope I succeeded (in improving it) and,
if so, that you'll accept the improvement.
Cheers,
--
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:50:52PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Am 08.06.2011 23:22, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> > > Hello Cyril and Michael,
> > >
> > > Are you willing to resecond this as the final version ?
> >
> >
> > At the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:50:52PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 08.06.2011 23:22, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> > Hello Cyril and Michael,
> >
> > Are you willing to resecond this as the final version ?
>
>
> At the current state, I'm not for adding /run/shm to debian-policy.
> If we can get wid
Am 08.06.2011 23:22, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:25:18AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have attached the full patch against current policy.git. This is
>> identical to the previous patches, with the addition of a single
>> sentence to the footnote:
>>
>> "Additi
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:25:18AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have attached the full patch against current policy.git. This is
> identical to the previous patches, with the addition of a single
> sentence to the footnote:
>
> "Additionally, the subdirectory /run/shm is a replacement
>
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:53:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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 resec
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 /var/run, and its
> > > + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement
> > > for
> > > + /var/lock. T
Am 05.04.2011 20:13, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> I suggest to wait until /run exists in unstable systems, but not until
> packages are
> using it. This allows developers to notice the change and maybe comment on
> the patch.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/base-files/news/20110405T161708Z.html
--
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:34:38PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
> a patch with proposed text.
>
> References:
> #620191 - initscripts support for /run
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > + replacement for /var/run, and its
> > + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> > + /var/lock. These changes have been
> > + adopted by most distributions
Hi!
> + replacement for /var/run, and its
> + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> + /var/lock. These changes have been
> + adopted by most distributions and have been proposed
> + for inclusion in a fut
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:55:21PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Roger Leigh (04/04/2011):
> > + should not be preserved across reboot.
>
> “reboots” if you want to stay consistent with the hunk below.
>
> > + contents are not preserved across reboots. This
>
Roger Leigh (05/04/2011):
> Updated patch attached. To match existing usage in the document,
> I've switch both to the singular "reboot" since the contents will
> be lost over a single reboot. Hope that's OK?
Surely.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Roger Leigh (04/04/2011):
> + additionally allowed: /run,
> + /sys and /selinux.
> + The /run directory is a
> + replacement for /var/run, and its
> + subdirectory /run/lock is a replacement for
> +
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:34:38PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
> a patch with proposed text.
>
> References:
> #620191 - initscripts support for /run
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
Please could you add /run as an exception to the FHS? I've attached
a patch with proposed text.
References:
#620191 - initscripts support for /run
#620157 - base-files provides /run
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fed
25 matches
Mail list logo
