Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> writes: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:58:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Note that this version of the patch explicitly says that packages >> "should" use /run and /run/lock in preference to /var/run and >> /var/lock. My understanding is that this is where we want to go, but >> if this is premature, that paragraph can easily be removed for now >> without changing the substance of the rest of this change. > Seconded (with this change). For wheezy, packages can use /run only > with the appropriate dependency on initscripts (to ensure its > presence and writability), which means that in general it's advisable > to continue to use the old paths, which are guaranteed to be > available at all points during a wheezy upgrade. There's also cross- > distribution/OS compatibility to consider; since the old paths > continue to be avilable on all systems, that may well be the better > choice. So I think that it might be OK for wheezy+1, but is probably > premature at this point. > For wheezy, we've only migrated packages using non-standard locations > such as /lib/init/rw, /dev/.xxx and /dev/shm/.xxx etc., and left > packages using /var/run and /var/lock alone. They are however at > liberty to migrate individually should they wish to add the appropriate > initscripts dependency and switch their paths over. But I would > generally just advise waiting for wheezy+1 and switching the paths > without the dependency--the files will already be present in both > locations at that point. Ah, okay, thanks. I've removed that paragraph from the version that I'll commit. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
