On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Murphy <poiso...@gmail.com> wrote: [ snip ] > Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids > issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is there > much reason _not_ to link /var/run and /var/lock over to their > respective equivalents on /run?
I use systemd, which was the one introducing both /run and /run/lock: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2011-March/001757.html With systemd, /var/run and /var/lock are bind-mounted to /run and /run/lock respectively. /run uses in my laptop (regularly suspended, with an uptime of 25 days) 8.8 megabytes, which I think is basically nothing for my 4 gigabyte RAM. After more programs (dracut, plymouth) started using /run and /run/lock, OpenRC implemented the same functionality; or so I read somewhere, I haven't used OpenRC in a while. In theory, it should work the same as with systemd. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
