Suggestion: by default, create /run/unbound and use it for pidfile

ronvarburg at ronvarburg at
Wed Jul 3 08:50:56 UTC 2019

 When doing that for fedora/rhel/centos packaging, who is responsible for the creation
of the directory, /run/unbound in this case, if it doesn't exist? 
Is it the responsibility of the packager or the application?     On Sunday, June 30, 2019, 6:14:00 PM GMT+1, Paul Wouters <paul at> wrote:  
 On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Ron Varburg via Unbound-users wrote:

> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 04:11:12
> From: Ron Varburg via Unbound-users <unbound-users at>
> To: unbound-users at
> Subject: Suggestion: by default, create /run/unbound and use it for pidfile
> Currently, /run/ is the default pidfile.
> I suggest to change that to /run/unbound/ Creating /run/unbound/ if it doesn't exists and
> no other directory was configured.
> Rational: to make /run tidier. It is true that might be the only file in /run/unbound/.
> On the other hand, I think /run/unbound/ is the natural place for
>    control-interface: /run/unbound/unbound.sock
> I think apache2 uses that approach. Sometimes is the only file under /run/apache2. Still,
> it prefers /run/apache2/ over /run/
> It is also true that the /run/unbound directory could be set by appropriate configuration. But having a
> default setting requires less administration.

We already do this for fedora/rhel/centos packaging.
Although, we haven't changed from the TLS socket on localhost to the
socket file in /run/unbound/unbound.sock as a default.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unbound-users mailing list