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

proposed resolution of 5.7-1(A), /var/mail

hi All,

Assuming we can (finally) close this issue as proposed by Alan Cox, attached
is my proposed resolution to the comment raised against the
LSB-FHS test specification.

@ 5.7-1(A), /var/mail

Shouldn't this be /var/spool/mail with an optional symlink from /var/mail?

Reviewer Response:
[*** ACCEPT with modifications -
The FHS 2.0 explicitly states that the mail directory be
/var/mail however concerns have been raised with the specification, and this
issue will be fed back to the FHS owner.  The concensus position for
the LSB is that /var/mail and /var/spool/mail should both point to the
mail spool area, if the system supports it. Note for test strategy: It is
undefined if these are symlinks, links or directories.]

Note that I have sent all the other issues we have identified with the FHS2.0
specification to Dan for consideration in the next revision of the FHS.


On Jan 30,  7:14pm in "Re: Resolutions to c", Alan Cox wrote:
> I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read
> "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both
>  /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system
>  has a mail spool. The preferred reference name is /var/mail.
>  [Rationale: /var/mail is the only name available on some other modern Unix
>   platforms. /var/spool/mail is the older Linux tradition and needed for
>   compatibility]
>  [Rationale2: The physical location of the mail spool is not relevant to
>   an application and is administrator policy. It is thus left open.]
> Can everyone live with that and bury the thread
> Alan
>-- End of excerpt from Alan Cox

Reply to: