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

[ronvarburg at yahoo.com]

 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 nohats.ca> 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 nlnetlabs.nl>
> To: unbound-users at nlnetlabs.nl
> Subject: Suggestion: by default, create /run/unbound and use it for pidfile
> 
> Currently, /run/unbound.pid is the default pidfile.
> I suggest to change that to /run/unbound/unbound.pid. Creating /run/unbound/ if it doesn't exists and
> no other directory was configured.
> Rational: to make /run tidier. It is true that unbound.pid 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 apache2.pid is the only file under /run/apache2. Still,
> it prefers /run/apache2/apache2.pid over /run/apache2.pid.
> 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.

Paul
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/attachments/20190703/f8d20214/attachment.htm>