Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen Sitaker)
- Cc: tytso@mit.edu, quinlan@transmeta.com, alan@cymru.net, gordon.m.tetlow@vanderbilt.edu, florian@suse.de, hpa@transmeta.com, ewt@redhat.com, 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 16:10:59 -0800 (PST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901260010.QAA17835@cesium.transmeta.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.SUN.3.96.990125190541.1767K-100000@kirk.dnaco.net> from Kragen Sitaker at "Jan 25, 99 07:09:34 pm"
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > If we must back out /var/mail (for no good technical reason that I can
> > determine), then at the very least I think we should state that there
> > that for all compliant distributions, /var/mail *MUST* be a valid way of
> > reaching the spool directory (i.e., there should be a symlink there, or
> > where the spool directory actually lives)
>
> If you include this change, will using ~/Mailbox violate the FHS? Does
> it already? Should it? Should we require symlinks from
> /var/mail/$USER to ~$USER/Mailbox?
>
> Switching a single one-user system to ~/Mailbox is easy, btw.
> Switching a single multi-user system to ~/Mailbox is likely to cause a
> certain amount of pain. Distributing applications to millions of
> people, some of whom use one convention, and some of whom use another,
> is surely asking for trouble.
>
~/Mailbox systems are inherently local-setup anyway; they're going to
need their own applications, unless they have the symlinks (I think
there are special daemons to create link farms like that using a
virtual NFS server.)
-hpa
Reply to: