| 1 |
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:58:56PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет: |
| 4 |
> >> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2]. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this |
| 7 |
> >> directory ... What does everyone else think? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until |
| 10 |
> > there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if |
| 11 |
> > it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should |
| 15 |
> both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year, |
| 16 |
> and so have other distributions. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Once /run is in place, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
/var/run will be a symbolic link to /run and /var/lock will be a |
| 21 |
symbolic link to /run/lock. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So that will cover /var/run. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives