Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Alan Cox <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, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: Florian La Roche <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:44:20 +0100
- Message-id: <19990126104420.A7484@knorke.saar.de>
- In-reply-to: <199901252309.SAA02711@dcl>
- References: <199901251858.KAA15041@sodium.transmeta.com> <199901252309.SAA02711@dcl>
> At least that way applications that want to use the same dirctory as the
> vast majority of other Unix systems will work without needing a special
> case for Linux. However, I would much rather see us adopt the full,
> correct solution, rather than this half-measure.
How can changing from /var/spool/mail to /var/mail be a "full solution"
for the next years to come?
Many people think that the mail-dir solution that e.g. qmail and mutt
support is the real solution for the future. Maybe future Linux distributions
want to ship that as a default? They couldn't be compliant with this
standard even though they use a more modern mail-storing setup.
The change from /var/spool/mail can be done on any system with an
"ln -s spool/mail /var/mail". Why mix up all Linux users instead of
keeping this a local solution anybody can do?
So maybe any standard should not say something about the mail spool dir?
Florian La Roche