Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com>,   --text@murphy.novare.net, follows@murphy.novare.net, this@murphy.novare.net,   line--@murphy.novare.net writes ("Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0"):
>  Wichert> Can we agree our preference is /var/mail, is stated in the
>  Wichert> current FHS? 
> 
> 	I think I would disagree, and not merely as an opinion. 

For the record, I agree with Manoj.

I'm really posting because I want to comment a little on the history
of this change.  When the FSSTND became the FHS, a decision was taken
to retarget it to cover not hjust Linux but also other systems,
notably BSD.  A number of BSD people joined the mailing list.

Many changes were proposed that were intended to give better BSD
compatibility, despite the fact that most Linux systems had followed
the existing FSSTND, and that most of the reasons for those earlier
decisions still stood.

I argued against these changes, passionately at times.  I was told I
was Linux-centric, arrogant, and stubborn (I'm certainly the latter
two, and in the context of the FSSTND I'm the first too), and in the
end I made many of my opponents on the list quite annoyed with me.
Since then I haven't participated much on the FHS list; I have a
couple of times (like this one) commented on some of these changes
here on debian-policy.

However, time has shown that most Linux distributions have not adopted
the major harmful changes from the FHS.  Everyone is still using
/var/lib and /var/spool/mail.

I still think that /var/state and /var/mail should be ditched from the
FHS.  They are pointless changes that will have significant costs.

Ian.