| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 06/02/13 09:53 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 6 February 2013 14:18, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> So, *my* systems do have /var/run -> /run , which means at some |
| 8 |
>> point the /run migration did happen and compatibility symlinks |
| 9 |
>> were created. If hwoarang's systems don't have this, there must |
| 10 |
>> be an issue somewhere. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My system is a brand new ~testing installation with a |
| 14 |
> stage3-amd64-20130110.tar.bz2. I am not sure who is responsible |
| 15 |
> for creating this symlink. I see the symlink is present on that |
| 16 |
> stage3 tarball so somehow it must have been removed from my system. |
| 17 |
> Even if it was a user error, then shouldn't there be a mechanism of |
| 18 |
> recreating it on every boot if it's gone missing? At least until |
| 19 |
> all init scripts migrate to /run. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
..there was a discussion a week or two back about portage cleaning up |
| 23 |
symlinks, or something that needs to be done to keep portage warning |
| 24 |
about symlinks, or something. Anyways, I'm wondering if a change was |
| 25 |
made related to that and for whatever reason portage is now cleaning |
| 26 |
/var/run |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlEScMgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAl7wEAj/n6Euiq/8gNn2tb8LjdJB7E |
| 33 |
07yk78xCMZJudAHI/NEA/jHR5BoQIHZu2Tm5PRBN3BiK3Fe1miak3Z4UGVuSRudx |
| 34 |
=j+bI |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives