| 1 |
On Monday, 12. September 2011 12:42:00 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me and |
| 4 |
> > one |
| 5 |
> > other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on -dev. I was |
| 6 |
> > pretty sure it was and then another person posted they read the same. |
| 7 |
> > So, I'm almost certain it was said at this point. Surely we can't |
| 8 |
> > both be wrong. |
| 9 |
> Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own |
| 10 |
> partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in |
| 11 |
> its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be |
| 12 |
> supported in the future? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Just have a look in /var/lib/* for example. |
| 15 |
You guarantee, that nothing of this stuff is or will be needed by udev? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be |
| 18 |
> symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this |
| 19 |
> sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the |
| 20 |
> recommended setup. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yes. Until this dev has his next brilliant idea. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Saying that proposing /run and /lock to be available at boot time |
| 25 |
> Damn, this list is like crack. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
For sure :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Regards everyone. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Best, |
| 32 |
Michael |
Archives