Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: email@example.com (Kragen Sitaker)
- Cc: 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, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:29:33 +0000 (gmt)
- Message-id: <199901261029.KAA08594@cscmgb.cc.ic.ac.uk>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990125190541.1767Kemail@example.com> from "Kragen Sitaker" at Jan 25, 99 07:09:34 pm
The keyboard of Kragen Sitaker emitted at some point in time:
> 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?
Hmm, and a mandatory symlink form $LOGNAME/Mailbox to /var/mail/$LOGNAME,
and we will have established FHS compliant systems as those "where email
won't work any more".
N.B. your phrasing was not POSIX compliant, tut, tut, tut. A good example
how technically simple and conceptually irrelevant changes (from USER to
LOGNAME) are still extremely dificult to achieve in practice.
> 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.
Pain of no real benefit to the end user, as long as "it works".
> Distributing applications to millions of
> people, some of whom use one convention, and some of whom use another,
> is surely asking for trouble.
Yes, it is. arguing about it will make mpore pain.
* Why not use metric units and get it right first time, every time ?
* email: cmaae47 @ imperial.ac.uk