rfc: use of the /run directory
 

All,

I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2]. The issue is
that there are at least two packages, udev and dracut, in gentoo, which
support the use of this directory. Support for it is being worked on in
openrc, and systemd will use it once it comes into the tree.

For now, it is optionally supported in udev, but udev upstream plans to
make this mandatory at some point in the future.

I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this
directory in a new release of baselayout, so that we will avoid bugs in
the future when packages start requiring it.

What does everyone else think?

William

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361349

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2].

> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this
> directory ... What does everyone else think?

I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until
there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if
it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning.

--
Peter.

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
>> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2].
>
>> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this
>> directory ... What does everyone else think?
>
> I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until
> there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if
> it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning.
>

I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
and so have other distributions.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Tuesday 17 May 2011 20:28:56 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
> >> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2].
> >>
> >> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this
> >> directory ... What does everyone else think?
> >
> > I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until
> > there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if
> > it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning.
>
> I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> and so have other distributions.

The lwn article is definitely interesting to read, I welcome the new /run. I
wouldn't make /tmp as tmpfs though, there are some packages (wireshask I'm
looking at you) that can fill the directory fairly easy.

Regards,
--
Angelo Arrifano AKA MiKNiX
Gentoo Embedded developer
GPE maintainer
http://www.gentoo.org/~miknix
http://miknix.homelinux.com

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ângelo Arrifano <miknix@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 20:28:56 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
>> both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
>> and so have other distributions.
>
> The lwn article is definitely interesting to read, I welcome the new /run. I
> wouldn't make /tmp as tmpfs though, there are some packages (wireshask I'm
> looking at you) that can fill the directory fairly easy.
>

I wonder what Fedora and Ubuntnu do to fix that. Maybe we should do
the same thing.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:58:56PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 11:57 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
> >> I think we should support the /run directory [1] [2].
> >
> >> I, as well as several others, believe we should proactively create this
> >> directory ... What does everyone else think?
> >
> > I've read https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and that convinced me. Until
> > there is better solution, please, do it. Also I think it's good idea if
> > it'll be on tmpfs, as it should, from the very beginning.
> >
>
> I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> and so have other distributions.

Once /run is in place,

/var/run will be a symbolic link to /run and /var/lock will be a
symbolic link to /run/lock.

So that will cover /var/run.

William

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 20:43 +0200, Ângelo Arrifano пишет:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 20:28:56 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> > and so have other distributions.
>
> The lwn article is definitely interesting to read, I welcome the new /run. I
> wouldn't make /tmp as tmpfs though, there are some packages (wireshask I'm
> looking at you) that can fill the directory fairly easy.

Hm, may be I miss something... but how wireshark fills /run? As far as I
see dumps go into /tmp.

--
Peter.

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Tuesday 17 May 2011 21:11:12 Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Втр, 17/05/2011 в 20:43 +0200, Ângelo Arrifano пишет:
> > On Tuesday 17 May 2011 20:28:56 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> > > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> > > and so have other distributions.
> >
> > The lwn article is definitely interesting to read, I welcome the new
> > /run. I wouldn't make /tmp as tmpfs though, there are some packages
> > (wireshask I'm looking at you) that can fill the directory fairly easy.
>
> Hm, may be I miss something... but how wireshark fills /run? As far as I
> see dumps go into /tmp.
>
> --
> Peter.

Either one of us is needing a break away from the computer to relax the eyes,
which one is it? :P
--
Angelo Arrifano AKA MiKNiX
Gentoo Embedded developer
GPE maintainer
http://www.gentoo.org/~miknix
http://miknix.homelinux.com

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On 23:58 Tue 17 May , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> ...
> I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> and so have other distributions.
>

Hi,

A quick look at the size of my desktop's /tmp is:

spirit@Vereniki ~ $ du -sh /tmp/
641M /tmp/
spirit@Vereniki ~ $

Maybe it's just me (cause of the way I'm using /tmp, eg. I use that dir
to unpack sources of packages I want to temporarily look inside and
for anything else *temporary*, also some programs (eg. browsers) use it
for temporary storage) but if there are others like me, I don't
think we'd like to do this in RAM space (tmpfs). For /run and /var/run
dirs it's ok I suppose.

--
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
( Gentoo Lisp Project )

rfc: use of the /run directory
 

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:20:56PM +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 23:58 Tue 17 May , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > ...
> > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should
> > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year,
> > and so have other distributions.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> A quick look at the size of my desktop's /tmp is:
>
> spirit@Vereniki ~ $ du -sh /tmp/
> 641M /tmp/
> spirit@Vereniki ~ $
>
> Maybe it's just me (cause of the way I'm using /tmp, eg. I use that dir
> to unpack sources of packages I want to temporarily look inside and
> for anything else *temporary*, also some programs (eg. browsers) use it
> for temporary storage) but if there are others like me, I don't
> think we'd like to do this in RAM space (tmpfs). For /run and /var/run
> dirs it's ok I suppose.

If you want /tmp to be a tmpfs, that is pretty easy to do through fstab
(I do that here actually). I'm not sure whether we want to force that on
a distribution level or not though.

The directories that would be affected by having /run on tmpfs would be
/var/run and /var/lock. The suggested way of doing this is to have
/var/run linked to /run and /var/lock linked to /run/lock.

William