Community Packages

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#63044 - [unbound] 1.9.2-1 Is it somewhat preferable to have a /run/unbound dedicated directory?

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by regid (regid1) - Sunday, 30 June 2019, 16:15 GMT
Last edited by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Monday, 16 September 2019, 23:41 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Gaetan Bisson (vesath)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No


With 1.9.2-1, the default pidfile is /run/
Would it be a bit better to have a dedicated directory under /run, dedicated to unbound?
This will make /run a bit tidier. And /run/unbound seems to me a natural place for
control-interface: /run/unbound/unbound.sock
and maybe other files.

Can PKGBUILD configure
--with-pidfile=/run/unbound/ \

It could be that apache2, and perhaps more packages, have a similar approach.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Gaetan Bisson (vesath)
Monday, 16 September 2019, 23:41 GMT
Reason for closing:  No response
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Monday, 02 September 2019, 08:13 GMT
We could use /run/unbound/ but that directory would need to be created and if it's to contain nothing but the pidfile, then we might as well just put the pidfile under /run like sshd and others do.

Can you elaborate on what we could put there besides the pidfile and control interface socket? I'd be happy to implement this if you convince me it's worth it. :)