Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/4] Misc cleanups & fixes to LXC driver
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:59:43AM -0500, Dennis Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
<berrange(a)redhat.com>wrote:
> From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)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 don't have any reference to point to - but this kind of problem hit
by libvirt is the reason why a relative symlink should be preferred
IMHO. Probably not too helpful to you though. Perhaps ask on the
systemd devel list whether they recommend ../run v /run ?
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|