Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin)
- Cc: alan@cymru.net, tytso@MIT.EDU, quinlan@transmeta.com, gordon.m.tetlow@vanderbilt.edu, florian@suse.de, hpa@transmeta.com, ewt@redhat.com, fhs-discuss@ucsd.edu, ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org, lsb-test@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:37:41 +0000 (GMT)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901260037.AAA22123@snowcrash.cymru.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199901260019.QAA17918@cesium.transmeta.com> from "H. Peter Anvin" at Jan 25, 99 04:19:45 pm
> 1. Interoperability with other systems.
10+ million Linux boxes use /var/spool/mail. Its also a spurious claim. All
existing tools assume linux uses /var/spool/mail. Other systems even sharing
via NFS dont get problems with this /var/spool usage
> 2. Disk space management.
We've proved between us that both views are held here. This therefore is a
rather spurious claim. A (maybe) symlink called /var/spool/mail that points
somewhere arbitary is all that is needed for this issue. The FHS need
say nothing else
Your arguments don't IMHO hold water, nor in fact anything else
Reply to: