On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:56:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > There are reasons for us not to change: it is hard to do right, as the
> > discussion has shown, and if we get it wrong we risk making people's
> > mail systems fall over or even losing mail.
>
> IMHO, the discussion has not shown it is hard to do it right.
>
> The proposal is to use /var/mail for *new* systems (those installed
> from base2_2.tgz) and keep /var/spool/mail for old systems.
Actually, /var/spool/mail shall be kept on new systems as well for
backwards compatibility--it'll just be a symlink. The only reason to
actually make it a directory on new systems with a backwards compatibile
symlink is to illustrate that a change has happened. That and by
including support for it being a directory in base-files, the admin need
never worry about putting it there and having base-files wig out on them
for setting it up that way.
> There will be no automatic "mv".
>
> [ Note that I'm not particularly disappointed that someone objects this
> proposal, I think we could well wait for FHS 2.1 to be official before
> going any further ].
FHS 2.1 includes /var/mail, but says it may be a symlink if need be.
So essentially Ian is trying to kill the proposal before FHS 2.1 has a
chance to be published and recommend this sort of approach. Wonderful.
Ahh, how appropriate can a sig get?
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Davide> how bout a policy policing policy with a policy for changing the
police policing policy
Attachment:
pgpPJmxNboHph.pgp
Description: PGP signature