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

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

> >> 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
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.


Reply to: