Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: quinlan@transmeta.com
- Cc: ewt@redhat.com, quinlan@transmeta.com, t.sippel-dau@ic.ac.uk, alan@cymru.net, gordon.m.tetlow@vanderbilt.edu, florian@suse.de, hpa@transmeta.com, tytso@mit.edu, fhs-discuss@ucsd.edu, ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org, lsb-test@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:57:51 -0800 (PST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901252057.MAA12660@cesium.transmeta.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199901252054.MAA16413@sodium.transmeta.com> from Daniel Quinlan at "Jan 25, 99 12:54:06 pm"
> >> New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic
> >> link for about two years.
>
> Erik Troan <ewt@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two
> > years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for 3.5.
>
> I said "new systems", not systems that are being upgraded.
>
> > You seem to be ignoring the upgrade issue. Allowing in-place upgrades
> > necessetates /var/spool/mail to exist in some form.
>
> I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it's a problem.
>
> If today's in-place upgrades don't allow /var/spool/mail to be a
> symbolic link, then they are broken. The same would be true for
> /var/mail on a system that still mounted the spool on /var/spool/mail.
I think interoperability requires that they be compatible as long as
possible, preferrably indefinitely. I would suggest:
1. REQUIRE /var/mail and /var/spool/mail to both exist, and be
aliases.
2. RECOMMEND future use of /var/mail throughout.
3. DEPRECATE the use of /var/spool/mail.
I don't see a need for abolishing the link /var/spool/mail any time
soon; it has to remain reserved namespace indefinitely anyway.
-hpa
Reply to: