Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: "H. Peter Anvin" <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:42:46 -0500 (EST)
- Message-id: <199901200842.DAA17379@dcl>
- In-reply-to: H. Peter Anvin's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:26 -0800 (PST), <199901200819.AAA11535@cesium.transmeta.com>
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:26 -0800 (PST)
I believe the FHS 2.0 change was right on target. Just about every
UNIX implementation today has moved away from /var/spool/mail to
/var/mail, and it has technical advantages.
If anything, specify /var/spool/mail being a symlink to /var/mail.
I agree. I also don't think it's a big deal. What's important is that
all of the MUA's get compiled so that they look for the mail spool in
/var/mail. If /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail, or /u3/mail,
or something else --- that's fine.
I don't think distributions are required to move the spool directory
around as part of an upgrade; just install a symlink! And if the user
has established a symlink so that the mail spool is on some entirely
different partition (for example, /u3/mail), then it's just a matter of
establishing a new symlink in /var/mail to point to /u3/mail.