From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 29 16:41:40 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E281065676
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.214.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284CA8FC14
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkcjc3 with SMTP id jc3so2841958bkc.13
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=UCMCqF9jGzHz2dElR8cqmo9y+pBpqsuP4IEiBDRWMPM=;
	b=Ldzn8oXrrvc767JbpGaXr+YEaCV8KencantGKiFxcPndHbrLpUfo128x/tFz/R2O/j
	eyo+NLliLr27nEgZ+qyp9SA0AJw13tXrgFta0FzYyLcMx26jfjwRE6qTn6ESJQmTD5CD
	n8KvcSb0ocmvIZVNkljirdrFzB5ZsEmJA/2rWrOf8rWCAwz0m99KsfENKYCLxz543abe
	vP8eaOfPDU6q65cjZVBQeozjyJPGOYyJwACgp3ZcNsURv0CK3O+EkDy6iZnOT/dOueFw
	q7F44wtNmvoNiydAH7Z1Jbv6/a6+o8D2CbyBrYfG93NlASTrhLEeu0v5PajpFyMvilfa
	c0Zw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.153.219 with SMTP id l27mr14599918bkw.126.1333039299037;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.202.142 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.202.142 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CADLo83_nxHeQROBE-gPb58ZqsNKCPriEO4ta6sPTkALDANFKQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:40 -0000

On 29 Mar 2012 16:49, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
wrote:
>
> I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and
> /var/run.
> I figured out some problems with some rc.d scripts when using TMPFS for
> /var/run, samba and OpenLDAP do store some informations like PID in a
> subfolder of their own in /var/run, but the rc.d scripts are not
> checking properly the existence of the appropritae folder (unlike "dbus"
> and "hald", they check properly!).
>
> I already submitted two PRs, but for SAMBA, my "hack" is trivial and
> obviously to clumsy, so it should be check properly.
>
> My question is whether there are objections using TMPFS for bot /tmp/
> and /var/run/ at this stage on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64?

Any rc script that complains about an empty /var/run is buggy- it should be
assumed that it will be emptied on boot.

In short, tmpfs for those two dirs should be fine.

Chris