[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/4] Misc cleanups & fixes to LXC driver



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange redhat com> wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange redhat com>

This series starts with a few cleanup patches removing code
that is no longer required. The final patch fixes an important
bug preventing LXC startup on certain distros which unwisely
chose to make /var/run an absolute symlink instead of a relative
symlink

(Slightly off-topic).  Can you cite a reference in the LSB or other documentation / discussion that describes why linking "/var/run" to "/run" is bad, and "../run" is preferred?

I've spent 30 minutes digging through Gentoo discussion archives and found lots of notes about making it a link to "/run".  If this is ill-advised, and I can cite a reference, I'll forward it the Gentoo init-script maintainer.

There are many notes on the internet to use "/var/run -> /run".  Other than your help yesterday, I've not found one reference to use "../run".  This suggests that the existing findable documentation is incorrect.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/57297/why-has-var-run-been-migrated-to-run
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/267752
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-unsolved-problem-of-the-init-scripts

Unfortunately, so far I am unable to find any canonical (offical) (not the Ubuntu Canonical!) Gentoo documentation on _why_ they symlink "/var/run" to "/run" instead of "../run".  However, they are migrating their init scripts to use "/run" instead of "/var/run".

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]