1 |
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 06/02/13 09:53 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
6 |
>> On 6 February 2013 14:18, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> So, *my* systems do have /var/run -> /run , which means at some |
9 |
>>> point the /run migration did happen and compatibility symlinks |
10 |
>>> were created. If hwoarang's systems don't have this, there must |
11 |
>>> be an issue somewhere. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> My system is a brand new ~testing installation with a |
15 |
>> stage3-amd64-20130110.tar.bz2. I am not sure who is responsible |
16 |
>> for creating this symlink. I see the symlink is present on that |
17 |
>> stage3 tarball so somehow it must have been removed from my system. |
18 |
>> Even if it was a user error, then shouldn't there be a mechanism of |
19 |
>> recreating it on every boot if it's gone missing? At least until |
20 |
>> all init scripts migrate to /run. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> ..there was a discussion a week or two back about portage cleaning up |
24 |
> symlinks, or something that needs to be done to keep portage warning |
25 |
> about symlinks, or something. Anyways, I'm wondering if a change was |
26 |
> made related to that and for whatever reason portage is now cleaning |
27 |
> /var/run |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Portage will "cleanup" the /var/run symlink after unmerging the last |
31 |
package that installed files under /var/run. |
32 |
|
33 |
I think an early init script (bootmisc?) needs to create the /var/run |
34 |
symlink if it is missing. |