| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:10 am Post subject: Do I really need /etc/init.d/tmpfiles.dev ? [solved] |
 |
|
Running openrc-0.17.
/etc/init.d/tmpfiles.dev calls /lib64/rc/sh/tmpfiles.sh That script in the first line says: | Quote: | # This is a reimplementation of the systemd tmpfiles.d code
# Control creation, deletion, and cleaning of volatile and temporary files |
I am suspicious of anything involving systemd. What did openrc do before systemd? Do I really need this code? I am running mdev rather than udev or eudev.
I endeavor to run a redHat-free system. This is impossible because of Mate but I am working on replacing that. In the meantime, I want to minimize RedHat code and, in particular, stay systemd free.
Last edited by Tony0945 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:41 am Post subject: Re: Do I really need /etc/init.d/tmpfiles.dev ? |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | I am suspicious of anything involving systemd. What did openrc do before systemd? |
Tony0945 ... the tmpfiles.d thing is the result of /run being migrated from /var/run and made tmpfs ... this came into existence via udev. Prior to /run as tmpfs files in /var/run would survive reboots so any expected /var/run/<service>/ directory wouldn't need boot time creation.
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Do I really need this code? I am running mdev rather than udev or eudev. |
It somewhat depends on what you're running, I don't have either tmpfiles.{dev,setup} initscripts in sysinit, and everything works as expected. You should look in 'tmpfiles_dirs' for any service specific configuration ... mostly likely you don't have any.
| Tony0945 wrote: | | I endeavor to run a redHat-free system. This is impossible because of Mate but I am working on replacing that. In the meantime, I want to minimize RedHat code and, in particular, stay systemd free. |
I don't think people fully appreciate the 'change' involved ... and it is not something easily avoided. If you're not using udev, *kit, etc, then you're in the minority, and with 'standardisation' as the goal you will inevitably be effected as more and more of this 'standard' is expected/required. No one appreciates this because the role they are expected to occupy is more and more one of an 'end-user' (or, we might say, consumer) and not a producer, collaborator, etc ... this is the fundamental change that has occurred, and is the result of vested interests effectively being able to use their economic power to control the direction development takes, with the "users" (those who historically were the driving force behind linux's success) taking an entirely passive role (again, as consumers). In short linux is nolonger about users, they (and their sweat-equity) have been traded in for an abstraction. Anyone who cares about this aspect of linux ... the "for the community, by the community" agreement that sees people like me providing my free time to support other users ... should seriously consider the implications involved in this 'change'. Linux, gentoo, etc, is the communty/users, take that away and all you have is a product (and personally I'll be damned if I'm providing my labour to support such a 'product').
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
"locate tmpfiles_dirs" didn't find anything. I commented out the action calls in the init scripts, put sysrescuecd in the DVD drive in case it was needed and rebooted. It rebooted fine.
I see I have a big learning curve here.
I agree 100% with your comments re Linux, RedHat, and Windows. I do believe there is a place for the turnkey Linux distros for the non-technical person. But they should understand their computer just as they should understand their car, even though they are not about to overhaul their engine, replace their shock absorbers or do body work. I've done all that but as an engineer and enthusiast, just like with Linux! But the average car owner should appreciate what's involved in those jobs so they don't get ripped off as M$ft has been doing for decades.
Edit: And, as always, I appreciate your skill and your service to the community. Molto Grazie!
Best, Tony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | "locate tmpfiles_dirs" didn't find anything. I commented out the action calls in the init scripts, put sysrescuecd in the DVD drive in case it was needed and rebooted. It rebooted fine. |
Tony0945 ... for the record 'tmpfiles_dirs' is a variable in /lib/rc/sh/tmpfiles.sh:
| /lib/rc/sh/tmpfiles.sh: | # XXX: The harcoding of /usr/lib/ is an explicit choice by upstream
tmpfiles_dirs='/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/ /etc/tmpfiles.d/ /run/tmpfiles.d/' |
I perhaps could have been more explicit about that ...
| Tony0945 wrote: | | I agree 100% with your comments re Linux, RedHat, and Windows. I do believe there is a place for the turnkey Linux distros for the non-technical person. But they should understand their computer just as they should understand their car, even though they are not about to overhaul their engine, replace their shock absorbers or do body work. I've done all that but as an engineer and enthusiast, just like with Linux! But the average car owner should appreciate what's involved in those jobs so they don't get ripped off as M$ft has been doing for decades. |
I would put it slightly differently, I don't think such a non-technical person "should understand", but they should be prepared to learn. I don't know the first thing about cars, I don't even know how to drive, but I'm perfectly prepared to defer to someone elses knowledge on the matter should some "technical" issue exist that I need to understand, and resolve. That said, one of the barriers to the acquisition of knowledge is the degree of transparency/opacity involved in the design, and what this means in relation to the "technical" understanding of the user ... so, how much is exposed to the user. That is what the conception of "non-technical user", "usability", etc, hides, there is a de-facto assumption about knowledge, and the method of acquiring knowledge (opacity being in essence a barrier, but framed as necessary for the purpose of protecting the user from technologies inner workings). In short, technology is treated as something which exists outside of use, practice, etc, and so this abstract user is held captive via the presumption of perpetual ignorance, incapacity, etc. No one is "technical" at the outset, techne is 'skill' acquired via practice, and it is design which essentially enables, or blocks, this acquisition.
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Edit: And, as always, I appreciate your skill and your service to the community. Molto Grazie! |
prego ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
