On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:51:17PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Bächler firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
This was discussed in a bug report iirc, here is some summary: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-distributions-to-include-run-di...
Apparently, many tools (among them udev) will soon require a /run/ directory that is mounted early (as tmpfs). It is probably a good idea to add this to the filesystem and initscripts packages.
I have just been reading up on this, and I agree that we should add it.
At some point in the future we should probably consider symlinking /var/run to /run and /var/lock to /run/lock, but we would have to implement https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18157 first, and /run is useful even without the symlinks. My understanding of the situation is that it is ok or /var/run and /run to be different, but please let me know if I'm wrong on this.
I guess we'll need to add the mountpoint to the filesystem package (possibly with permissions 0000 to avoid accidents) and mount the tmpfs early in rc.sysinit (I'll write the patch as soon as people agree that this is the right thing to do).
Why symlinks? Why not bind mount /run to /var/run and /run/lock to /var/lock once / is available?
Something else to think about: do we want to carry this back to the initcpio?