On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:40:31 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > On 08/12/2010 09:48 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> It says "Files under this directory", not "Files and directories
> >> under this directory."
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > So our policy basically is "tmpfs is not supported
> > for /var/run" (and also for /var/lock I suppose).
>
> it may have been in the past, but it's best to move forward and not
> sit in the past
>
> > It will be somewhat more work but instead of the above, we can say
> > "tmpfs might be used for /var/run and /var/lock and the init
> > scripts should handle this correctly". *It feels (for want of a
> > better word) better.
>
> i certainly use a tmpfs on /var/run to minimize disk writes. packages
> that break i file bugs for and/or fix myself. it isnt that hard.
>
> plus, it's just good behavior. if /var/run gets removed for whatever
> reason, people have to re-emerge a bunch of packages to simply create
> a subdir ? that's silly.

Bug #332633 tracks ebuilds (284) and eclasses (currently none) that
run "keepdir /var/run*".

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332633


jer

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> for people who do wish to improve their init.d scripts, recreating a
> dir is easy if your init.d runs after localmount:
> [ ! -d /var/run/foo ] && install -d -m 755 -o fowner -g fgroup /var/run/foo

Why not "checkpath -d -o fowner:fgroup -m 0755 /var/run/foo"?
This also corrects wrong owner and permissions for an existing dir.

Ulrich

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> for people who do wish to improve their init.d scripts, recreating a
>> dir is easy if your init.d runs after localmount:
>> [ ! -d /var/run/foo ] && install -d -m 755 -o fowner -g fgroup /var/run/foo
>
> Why not "checkpath -d -o fowner:fgroup -m 0755 /var/run/foo"?

i thought there was something. that was the whole point of Bug
192682. if we dont get openrc out the door, i'll have to add to
baselayout-1.
-mike

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:

>> Why not "checkpath -d -o fowner:fgroup -m 0755 /var/run/foo"?

> i thought there was something. that was the whole point of Bug
> 192682. if we dont get openrc out the door, i'll have to add to
> baselayout-1.

I thought you already had backported checkpath?
<http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/baselayout/branches/baselayout-1_12/bin/checkpath?view=log>

Ulrich

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Why not "checkpath -d -o fowner:fgroup -m 0755 /var/run/foo"?
>>
>> i thought there was something. *that was the whole point of Bug
>> 192682. *if we dont get openrc out the door, i'll have to add to
>> baselayout-1.
>
> I thought you already had backported checkpath?
> <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/baselayout/branches/baselayout-1_12/bin/checkpath?view=log>

clearly i cant remember anything anymore. checkpath is indeed in
stable baselayout.
-mike