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
> 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.