Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joseph Carter)
- Cc: email@example.com, rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.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, 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: "H. Peter Anvin" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:29:16 -0800 (PST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901310729.XAA14302@cesium.transmeta.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19990130225331.A2377@debian.org> from Joseph Carter at "Jan 30, 99 10:53:31 pm"
> I'd live with that, but I'd prefer just /var/mail be used and if vendors
> want to create a symlink for backward compatibility or even from
> /var/mail to /var/spool for easy upgrades, let them.. (creating a
> symlink from /var/mail to /var/spool/mail if /var/mail does not exist is
> likely how Debian would handle such a change without surprises for the
I would prefer it as well, but I agree with Alan Cox that it is
probably not appropriate for standardization. Make the standard say
/var/mail and /var/spool/mail both have to work.