Re: [gentoo-dev] The /run migration

[Stefan Ehret]

On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 10:23 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 06/02/13 09:53 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> On 6 February 2013 14:18, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So, *my* systems do have /var/run -> /run , which means at some
> >>> point the /run migration did happen and compatibility symlinks
> >>> were created. If hwoarang's systems don't have this, there must
> >>> be an issue somewhere.
> >>>
> >>
> >> My system is a brand new ~testing installation with a
> >> stage3-amd64-20130110.tar.bz2. I am not sure who is responsible
> >> for creating this symlink. I see the symlink is present on that
> >> stage3 tarball so somehow it must have been removed from my system.
> >> Even if it was a user error, then shouldn't there be a mechanism of
> >> recreating it on every boot if it's gone missing? At least until
> >> all init scripts migrate to /run.
> >>
> >
> > ..there was a discussion a week or two back about portage cleaning up
> > symlinks, or something that needs to be done to keep portage warning
> > about symlinks, or something.  Anyways, I'm wondering if a change was
> > made related to that and for whatever reason portage is now cleaning
> > /var/run
> >
>
> Portage will "cleanup" the /var/run symlink after unmerging the last
> package that installed files under /var/run.
>
> I think an early init script (bootmisc?) needs to create the /var/run
> symlink if it is missing.
>

My disision by stage3-tarball is to wait a few weeks and will read the
gentoo mails.

Best regards

Stefan Ehret