Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!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
Opened by regid (regid1) - Sunday, 30 June 2019, 16:15 GMT
Last edited by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Monday, 16 September 2019, 23:41 GMT
|
DetailsWith 1.9.2-1, the default pidfile is /run/unbound.pid.
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/unbound.pid \ ? 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
Monday, 16 September 2019, 23:41 GMT
Reason for closing: No response
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. :)