Bug#37089: debian-policy: /var/mail and FHS considerations
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Recently on irc there was a complaint that some newly compiled programs now
use /var/mail in place of /var/spool/mail.
This came up before and we had a nice big flamewar about it with the help of
the LSB and FHS people, trying to decide where to put the incoming
mailboxen. It was determined then that either location should be considered
acceptable, but for now at least both must exist---one a symlink to the
other.
Whelp, now software is starting to use it and is breaking because Debian
doesn't have a /var/mail. I filed a priority undefined bug against
base-files requesting that if /var/mail does not exist a symlink from that
to /var/spool/mail should be created. He disagreed with me and suggested I
take it up with -policy (which I am doing..)
I believe there is no harm in creating this symlink. Santiago believes that
if we start creating symlinks we won't be able to tell which software is
using /var/mail and which are using /var/spool/mail. He cited that we don't
use /usr/spool with a symlink for a reason, though I would argue that FSSTND
called for /var/spool to replace /usr/spool. I believe since FHS 2.1
does/will require both be present, this is a non-issue.
I believe the most reasonable thing to do is for base-files to create a
symlink if /var/mail does not exist. This is the best way to handle
transition to /var/mail for an existing installation. Doing otherwise would
not be following the least surprise model.
On a new installation, I think the base tarball should create /var/mail as a
directory and make /var/spool/mail the symlink. This satisfies the spirit
of the FHS, to which is to move closer to the /var/mail which is used on
most other unices, while maintaining the backward compatibility which was so
important to people for obvious reasons.
-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux icarus2 2.2.6-ac1 #2 Wed Apr 21 08:45:48 PDT 1999 i586 unknown
Reply to: