Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 01.04.11 16:37, Ludwig Nussel ([email protected]) wrote: > > In any case declaring some directory as the standard place for lock > > files doesn't fully solve the problem anyways. The exact lock file > > naming isn't quite standardized either. There's at least the FHS > > "LCK..name" method and the SVr4 "LK.dev.maj.min" method. > > I have never seen LK.x.y.z files. Documentation link?
http://www.airs.com/ian/uucp-doc/uucp_7.html#SEC86 http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ckuins.html#x10 > It's one thing extending the base that the FHS describes in a distro, > it's another thing dropping things that it defines, such as the > /var/lock directory. > > Now, the only improvement on the brokeness of LCK..xxx style locks we > can pull off easily is seperating them from the other stuff that is > stored in /var/lock. And this is usually simple (compile time switches > in various programs), and actually implemented in Fedora. > > I hope this makes some sense. If you moving the lock files to a different place you are silently breaking legacy applications. Sure they can still put the lock files to /var/lock but other programs in the system just don't honor them anymore. So as long as there are no inherently unsolvable problems with lockdev using /var/lock directly I see no need to go the a half solution /var/lock/lockdev. I'd rather add an rpmlint check to ban use of /var/lock/subsys on openSUSE, there are only a few packages using it anyways. How many packages in Fedora that did not use lockdev already were actually patched to use /var/lock/lockdev anyways? cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
