| 1 |
On 6 February 2013 15:30, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
>> > Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > On 06/02/13 09:53 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 8 |
>> >> On 6 February 2013 14:18, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>> >>> |
| 10 |
>> >>> So, *my* systems do have /var/run -> /run , which means at some |
| 11 |
>> >>> point the /run migration did happen and compatibility symlinks |
| 12 |
>> >>> were created. If hwoarang's systems don't have this, there must |
| 13 |
>> >>> be an issue somewhere. |
| 14 |
>> >>> |
| 15 |
>> >> |
| 16 |
>> >> My system is a brand new ~testing installation with a |
| 17 |
>> >> stage3-amd64-20130110.tar.bz2. I am not sure who is responsible |
| 18 |
>> >> for creating this symlink. I see the symlink is present on that |
| 19 |
>> >> stage3 tarball so somehow it must have been removed from my system. |
| 20 |
>> >> Even if it was a user error, then shouldn't there be a mechanism of |
| 21 |
>> >> recreating it on every boot if it's gone missing? At least until |
| 22 |
>> >> all init scripts migrate to /run. |
| 23 |
>> >> |
| 24 |
>> > |
| 25 |
>> > ..there was a discussion a week or two back about portage cleaning up |
| 26 |
>> > symlinks, or something that needs to be done to keep portage warning |
| 27 |
>> > about symlinks, or something. Anyways, I'm wondering if a change was |
| 28 |
>> > made related to that and for whatever reason portage is now cleaning |
| 29 |
>> > /var/run |
| 30 |
>> > |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> Portage will "cleanup" the /var/run symlink after unmerging the last |
| 33 |
>> package that installed files under /var/run. |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> I think an early init script (bootmisc?) needs to create the /var/run |
| 36 |
>> symlink if it is missing. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> The only problem with this approach is it doesn't solve the issue for |
| 39 |
> people who are not using OpenRc. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> William |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
You mean the issue for people not having /var/run->/run and not |
| 45 |
running openrc? Do all rc systems expect a /var/run->/run? If so, let |
| 46 |
other rc system developers to fix it properly in their code. Since we |
| 47 |
do have the ability to fix it in openrc I would say please do it just |
| 48 |
to make sure systems will remain functional until all init scripts are |
| 49 |
properly fixed. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Regards, |
| 53 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 54 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives