Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: email@example.com (Kragen Sitaker)
- 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, fhs-discuss@UCSD.Edu, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:10:59 -0800 (PST)
- Message-id: <199901260010.QAA17835@cesium.transmeta.com>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990125190541.1767Kemail@example.com> from Kragen Sitaker at "Jan 25, 99 07:09:34 pm"
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > If we must back out /var/mail (for no good technical reason that I can
> > determine), then at the very least I think we should state that there
> > that for all compliant distributions, /var/mail *MUST* be a valid way of
> > reaching the spool directory (i.e., there should be a symlink there, or
> > where the spool directory actually lives)
> If you include this change, will using ~/Mailbox violate the FHS? Does
> it already? Should it? Should we require symlinks from
> /var/mail/$USER to ~$USER/Mailbox?
> Switching a single one-user system to ~/Mailbox is easy, btw.
> Switching a single multi-user system to ~/Mailbox is likely to cause a
> certain amount of pain. Distributing applications to millions of
> people, some of whom use one convention, and some of whom use another,
> is surely asking for trouble.
~/Mailbox systems are inherently local-setup anyway; they're going to
need their own applications, unless they have the symlinks (I think
there are special daemons to create link farms like that using a
virtual NFS server.)