On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Lamar Owen wrote: > If the maintainers of packages that want to run well on CentOS 7 need to have > /var/run/$some-file persistence (or pseudo-persistence, which is the current > behavior enabled by re-creating said files) then those maintainers will need > to change their packages to match actual behavior or file a bug report with > upstream to change the behavior. Upstream will probably close with a > 'WONTFIX' and the package maintainer will either change packaging or stop > supporting CentOS 7. Of course, stranger things have happened, and upstream > might relent on the decision. But my gut feel is that upstream will keep the > current behavior and the packages will eventually be changed to support it, > but I always reserve the right to be wrong. I see at least two possible intermediate results: The RHEL 7 folks do something, perhaps make a package, to make pseudo-persistence super easy to get. The RHEL 7 folks do something, perhaps make a package, to allow users to fix this particular problem, e.g. by adding pseudo-persisitence for a file used by a package. My guess is that neither would have to be done by the RHEL 7 folks. They might want to to ensure that neither gets done badly. -- Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards