On Wed, 06.04.11 18:25, Marius Tolzmann ([email protected]) wrote: Heya,
> >> We really don't want that in systemd for new systems. > > > > Marius, do you see anything using /var/lock? At least on my Gentoo > > it's not used (as expected). /var/run (/run) OTOH is full of users :-) > > > don't get me wrong.. i don't want to have neither /var/lock nor > /run/lock.. (and it was empty on my system, too) > > i just was confused why something like /run/lock was introduced in the > first place when it now only gets enabled when legacy support is > requested and everybody wants to get rid off it.. > (even the TODO list mentions that on the long run /var/lock should be a > symlink to whatever) That's a valid point. The choice was basically between: A) completely deprecate it, B) leave /var/lock broken as it is right now and a security hole or C) deprecate it, but fix the worst security issues. We chose C. > the whole lock-issue seems to be something the distributions and > upstream programmers should care about and nothing systemd can fix > directly.. Yupp, which is why we chose C. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
