[libvirt] [PATCH 0/4] Misc cleanups & fixes to LXC driver

[Dennis Jenkins]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com>wrote:

> From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com>
>
> This series starts with a few cleanup patches removing code
> that is no longer required. The final patch fixes an important
> bug preventing LXC startup on certain distros which unwisely
> chose to make /var/run an absolute symlink instead of a relative
> symlink
>

(Slightly off-topic).  Can you cite a reference in the LSB or other
documentation / discussion that describes why linking "/var/run" to "/run"
is bad, and "../run" is preferred?

I've spent 30 minutes digging through Gentoo discussion archives and found
lots of notes about making it a link to "/run".  If this is ill-advised,
and I can cite a reference, I'll forward it the Gentoo init-script
maintainer.

There are many notes on the internet to use "/var/run -> /run".  Other than
your help yesterday, I've not found one reference to use "../run".  This
suggests that the existing findable documentation is incorrect.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/57297/why-has-var-run-been-migrated-to-run
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/267752
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-unsolved-problem-of-the-init-scripts

Unfortunately, so far I am unable to find any canonical (offical) (not the
Ubuntu Canonical!) Gentoo documentation on _why_ they symlink "/var/run" to
"/run" instead of "../run".  However, they are migrating their init scripts
to use "/run" instead of "/var/run".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20130515/91bfcf0d/attachment-0001.htm>