| 1 |
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:40:31 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 08/12/2010 09:48 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> It says "Files under this directory", not "Files and directories |
| 7 |
> >> under this directory." |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Fair enough. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > So our policy basically is "tmpfs is not supported |
| 12 |
> > for /var/run" (and also for /var/lock I suppose). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> it may have been in the past, but it's best to move forward and not |
| 15 |
> sit in the past |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > It will be somewhat more work but instead of the above, we can say |
| 18 |
> > "tmpfs might be used for /var/run and /var/lock and the init |
| 19 |
> > scripts should handle this correctly". It feels (for want of a |
| 20 |
> > better word) better. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> i certainly use a tmpfs on /var/run to minimize disk writes. packages |
| 23 |
> that break i file bugs for and/or fix myself. it isnt that hard. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> plus, it's just good behavior. if /var/run gets removed for whatever |
| 26 |
> reason, people have to re-emerge a bunch of packages to simply create |
| 27 |
> a subdir ? that's silly. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Bug #332633 tracks ebuilds (284) and eclasses (currently none) that |
| 30 |
run "keepdir /var/run*". |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332633 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
jer |
Archives