[HEADS-UP] Moving /var/run and /var/lock to tmpfs in Rawhide
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Wed Nov 24 14:58:26 UTC 2010
On Wed, 24.11.10 03:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) wrote:
> > > Imho there should be a packaging guideline to make it clear what needs
> > > to be done in which cases. E.g. when to %ghost files and when not.
> > I guess extending the guidelines with a line or two about this is a good idea.
> I see you've already filed some bugs but in the future it would be best to
> get the packaging guidelines worked out before you do that. Most notably
> because it seems like you're going to have to now file an update to all of
> those bugs due to:
I don't think this will be necessary since only a small subset of
services will need this treatment.
I have mentioned it a couple of times, but I will do so here again:
OpenSUSE and Ubuntu have been shipping their systems like this since
quite some time, as do we apparently with the stateless stuff. Most
software has already been fixed to properly create those subdirs on its
own. That's why adding tmpfiles drop-ins will be necessary only in
> > Hmm, it has been suggested that we should make it possible to create
> > these dirs in the .spec files by invoking the systemd-tmpfiles tool
> > directly from the scriptlets. I guess we should add a nice interface for
> > that. In the meantime it should be sufficient to simply place th right
> > "mkdir -p -m ..." in the scriptlet. Of course it would be desirable if
> > we have a single place where the dirs to create are encoded.
> A question I'd have when looking over a proposed packaging guideline would
> be: why %ghost the directories? Why not include the directories as normal
> but add the tmpfiles.d step in addition?
Well, because rpm has introduced %ghost for cases like this, and everybody
else uses it for that.
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the devel