Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Alan Cox)
- Cc: tytso@MIT.EDU, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:19:45 -0800 (PST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901260019.QAA17918@cesium.transmeta.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199901260015.AAA21674@snowcrash.cymru.net> from Alan Cox at "Jan 26, 99 00:15:37 am"
> One simple one - I want my mail on the spool disk. Its in the grows
> randomly, mostly crap, doesnt cause hassle if it fills for a while
That, I believe, is not the majority opinion. At most industrial
sites, mail spool overflow is a major crisis.
> I have no problem with a "both paths must one work one or more may be a
> symlink". At that point however the FHS should mandate one which may be a
> symlink only. Right now everyone uses /var/spool/mail whats the technical
> reason for using /var/mail that is good enough to justify the change ?
1. Interoperability with other systems.
2. Disk space management.