On 2025-03-24 17:02, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 22.03.25 um 16:17 schrieb Jing Luo:
>> It's more appropriate under Debian, and vzdump.lock doesn't seem to
>> be used by any other package.
> 
> This is very dangerous and needs a ton of work to be done right.
> 
> As any vzdump job that started before a package update got installed 
> that
> includes this (and the others) patches and any job started afterwards 
> will
> not be protected at all.

My bad, for this patch I didn't think it through what the result could 
be. For
now let's drop this patch.

> Same for all other patches and the respective things they use the lock
> to protect against mutual access.
> 
> If this was done we would need to:
> - keep the old lock path for one major release around and always 
> acquire
>   the lock over the old path first for as long as we can safely say 
> that
>   no old job is running. For a lot of things this means until the next
>   reboot, as /run is tmpfs backed and thus will be cleared then anyway.
> 
> - need some actual good reason instead of "it's more appropriate" which
>   can be a fine argument for adding new lock paths but definitively not
>   enough to justify moving existing ones.
> 
> The same holds for all patches of this series.

What's wrong with other patches in the series? No lock file path is 
moved, b/c
/var/run is a symlink to /run and /var/lock is a symlink to /run/lock, 
unless
we have to account for non-Debian systems where /var/run and /var/lock 
are not
symlinks?

-- 
Jing Luo
About me: https://jing.rocks/about/
GPG Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC