- cross-posted to:
- lobsters
- cross-posted to:
- lobsters
You must log in or register to comment.
The plan is to get rid of /run/lock entirely in the v259 release, though users (or distributions) can still retain the legacy behavior by adding a configuration file in /etc/tmpfiles.d to override systemd’s defaults and create the directory with the desired permissions.
So systemd provides an option and it is intended to use it, if you disagree. I don’t see a problem here. As long as it is an option and supported, its the distribution who have to make the change. Therefore Debian does not “override systemd change”, but rather “Debian makes use of the normal systemd configuration”. Am I understanding this wrong??
Although besides this, if Systemd wants to have a standard directory for lock files, that is only accessible by root, how about
/var/lock/rootsubdirectory?Why on earth would the permissions on /var/lock be something for systemd to decide?
Why on earth would the permissions on /var/lock be something for systemd to decide?
Because – as LWN explains – there no longer is an overarching standards body who makes the decision, so anybody can make up their own.
Debian’s continued use of UUCP-style locking does seem to be more than a little bit dated. The FHS 3.0 is clearly reaching the end of its useful life, if not actually expired.
Seems like Debian is more the outlier here.
Reading more carefully I see that the real reason is "the /run directory is created as a tmpfs filesystem specifically for run-time files by systemd-tmpfiles.
I forgot that systemd had been allowed to take over /tmp and /run.
I forgot that systemd had been allowed to take over /tmp and /run.
According to Debian everyone is allowed to take over /run
