[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> > I would *much* prefer this, I just didn't think I'd be able to win
> > the argument.
> Since this is "the objection that won't die", I'm currently
> considering four "ways out" of the mess created by this change that
> went into FHS 2.0.
>  1. totally revert, drop /var/mail, and specify /var/spool/mail
>  2. partially revert, /var/spool/mail is a directory and /var/mail
>     must be a symbolic link to it
>  3. allow a /var/spool/mail directory, provided that /var/mail is
>     a symbolic link to it
>  4. allow either /var/spool/mail or /var/mail to be a directory,
>     provided that the other is a symbolic link to it.
> I'm personally most in favor of #2 or #3.  I think #1 is almost as bad
> as the original change in FHS 2.0 and #4 is potentially confusing.  No
> matter what, FHS 2.1 will specify at least #3, if not one of the other
> possibilities.
> And for each possibility _PATH_MAILDIR is changed to reflect the
> actual directory, not the symbolic link.
> - Dan

I believe the FHS 2.0 change was right on target.  Just about every
UNIX implementation today has moved away from /var/spool/mail to
/var/mail, and it has technical advantages.

If anything, specify /var/spool/mail being a symlink to /var/mail.


Reply to: