On May 27, 2012 7:19 AM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:38 -0500
> > Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It
> >> appears that /run is sort of a temp thing while booting and just sort
> >> of sticks around after getting booted, since it is there anyway.  Why
> >> not use it?
> >
> > No, that is incorrect.
> >
> > /run is a deliberate design decision (and a damn good one that should
> > always have been there IMHO) and it sticks around because it is
> > supposed to. It's not an after-effect that just happens to be useful,
> > it's the entire objective.
> >
> > Think of it in the same way you think of /dev, /proc and /sys:
> >
> > There are there, there are guaranteed to be there with certain
> > behaviours, and you can't change that (neither should you want to).
> >
>
>
> What I was saying tho, since it appears to be needed now, since /var may
> not be mounted yet, it was created and is used during booting up.  Since
> it is there, why not use it, even AFTER the system is booted.  After
> all,  the files are already there since they were put there during boot
> up.  No need moving them and all that when they are already created and
> available.
>
> Plus, as someone said, I think it was you in another reply, what if /var
> fails to mount at all?  At that point, it still works since /run is
> there already.  Since /run is on tmpfs, if it fails to mount for some
> reason, you got issues already.  ;-)
>
> I don't mind it being there, I just hope udev, or whatever else may use
> it later on, doesn't get memory hungry.   Actually, maybe some other
> small directories could be placed there as well.  The lock files would
> be a good one to start with.  Just thinking.  May want to duck tho.  lol
>

You mean /var/lock ? Hasn't it transmogrified to /run/lock now?

Rgds,