Re: Packaging /run/lock/* directories breaks installation in containers
Rex Dieter wrote:
Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> the page
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
>
> suggests to specify /run/%{name}/ directories and files in %files and
> then says
>
> Files placed in the subdirectories may be listed the same way
> or omitted entirely as the files will be cleaned up on every
> reboot.
>
> I assume it talks about subdirectories of that /run/%{name}/.
>
> However, how about subdirectories like /run/lock/%{name}/ ?
>
> In Fedora base container images, the /run is empty. So when you try to
> do
>
> FROM fedora:23
> RUN dnf install -y package-which-puts-something-to-run-lock
>
> it will fail because there is no /run/lock there. An example is
> opencryptoki and
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341079
>
> What is the policy about specifying /run/lock/ (and in general
> /run/otherdirs/) subdirectories in %files?
>
> Could the guideline be amended to explicitly say that anything under
> /run/ which is not under /run/%{name}/ should not be listed in %files?
I've always been of the firm opinion that in general all files should be
"owned", e.g. that rpm -q -f /path/too/foo can tell you the owner. So, I
would argue against the amendment you suggest.
Offhand, what seems to be the real problem here is the lack of /run/lock
in
the container images. I'd consider that a bug worth fixing. Is that not
possible?
To expand on that, one fix would be to ensure /run/lock is "owned",
currently it is not. filesystem owns /var/lock, /var/run and /run, so
adding /run/lock there too could be a possibility.
-- Rex