[Oneiric-Foundations-Topic] Switch to /run

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:53:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 05.04.2011 19:19, schrieb Colin Watson:
> > On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 08:57:36AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >> ]] Scott Kitterman 
> >> | See http://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ and the current debian-devel thread on the 
> >> | topic for details: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00019.html
> >>
> >> We (meaning Michael Biebl, Roger Leigh and I) are pushing for this to be
> >> a release goal for wheezy as well, so any help from Ubuntu to help make
> >> it happen would be welcome.
> > 
> > As I said on the Fedora development list, I'm entirely happy to work on
> > this in Ubuntu.  I'm not even sure it needs UDS discussion;
> 
> It's great to have you on board!

FWIW, Scott James Remnant asked to take on the implementation of this in
Ubuntu.

> > a few obvious symlinks make it a non-intrusive change.
> 
> For a few selected packages like mdadm, lvm2, udev and initramfs-tools
> (basically the ones using /dev/.XXX dirs), you need coordinated uploads so they
> work together properly [1].

Why can't we have symlinks for those directories in both the initramfs
and the real root, and then they could move over gradually?  I don't see
why it needs to be tightly coordinated.

> For other packages that currently use /var/run (which are quite a few), I'd
> prefer if they kept using /var/run for another release cycle and are not (yet)
> patched to use /run directly. Otherwise a versioned dependency on base-files
> (resp. initscripts or upstart) would have to be added. If we wait for another
> release cycle with this, those packages simply can rely on /run being usable
> without a explict dependency.

For Ubuntu, that would need to be an LTS-to-LTS release cycle.  I'd
rather swallow the need for the versioned dependency, as otherwise we'll
just find that people forget about the pre-/run paths along the way.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]