| 1 |
Joshua Murphy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Joshua Murphy wrote: |
| 4 |
> <snip> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Well, I don't see why not. As you say, lack of a proper clean up after |
| 7 |
>> a bad shutdown can cause problems. Anything in /run would disappear |
| 8 |
>> after a shutdown, clean or not, since it is in tmpfs. It doesn't seem |
| 9 |
>> to use much ram either. I really don't know of a reason why it couldn't |
| 10 |
>> be set that way. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed tho. lol |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> As for one of us setting it to do that manually, I guess one could do |
| 13 |
>> that. If I recall correctly, /var/lock is *supposed* to be cleaned up |
| 14 |
>> when booting but that was a good long while ago. This may be something |
| 15 |
>> the devs are already getting ready for. I get the feeling that they are |
| 16 |
>> taking what I call baby steps. I noticed a upgrade to baselayout and I |
| 17 |
>> think OpenRC as well not long ago. I'm not sure what decided to put |
| 18 |
>> stuff in /run. I would think it would be one of those but it could be |
| 19 |
>> some other package. I guess udev could be one that could have made it |
| 20 |
>> as well. It does have a directory in there that has stuff in it. The |
| 21 |
>> rest are empty. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> I'd wait for a serious guru to reply before changing anything tho, just |
| 24 |
>> to be safe. ;-) |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> You think being up late at night is bad. You should see me when my meds |
| 27 |
>> are making me goofy. lol |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> Dale |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I would try it right now, but |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> a) the only proper 'desktop' I have running is a windows box, the rest |
| 37 |
> of my systems, netbook, laptops, and servers, are stripped down to the |
| 38 |
> bare essentials and are likely to continue skipping along smoothly for |
| 39 |
> a long while regardless of what I do to them, hardly a useful test for |
| 40 |
> something that could potentially cause catastrophic breakage for more |
| 41 |
> 'normal' systems, and |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> b) if it *did* break, I would dread it as I went about trying to |
| 44 |
> remember my exact steps to get there after I wake up tomorrow, |
| 45 |
> especially with the fact that I'm aiming to head to the office when I |
| 46 |
> wake, rather than toy around with fixing things here at home. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Maybe tomorrow evening on a couple systems, if the idea itself doesn't |
| 49 |
> bring about any "don't do this, you'll break <x>" responses between |
| 50 |
> now and then (and, depending on the severity of the potential |
| 51 |
> breakage, may still have to poke it with a stick). |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Be careful, sometimes when you poke things with a stick, it bites. ROFL |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Dale |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
:-) :-) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 63 |
how you interpreted my words! |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
| 66 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |
Archives