Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If all the vendors think /var/mail is stupid then its perhaps time > for the FHS to ask "ok why.. is there a problem, did we make a bad > choice, or did we simply fail to explain the reasons /var/mail is > good"
Well, I've been told that Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, PHT, and Caldera are all still using /var/spool/mail. This may be because most distributions haven't completely updated for FHS 2.0. Of course, that might be due to the /var/spool/mail change. The only software (that I know of) that has switched over to /var/mail is glibc. I am leaning towards backing out the change in FHS 2.1. I think it's a small long-term loss, and definitely a cop-out, but my hope is that now there will be a more serious review of FHS 2.1 by distributions before it is released. The one thing I think people have forgotten is that FHS is not just trying to codify current practice. If that was the case, we'd all still be using /etc for system binaries, there wouldn't be a standard directory for many things (like log files and documentation), we'd still use /usr/man/cat? for performatted manual pages, etc. Before reverting to /var/spool/mail, the practical question to ask distributions is: If we explicitly allow /var/mail to be a symbolic link to /var/spool/mail (or whereever), will you *consider* changing programs to reference /var/mail instead of /var/spool/mail? Upgraded systems would not need to have their mount point changed, and old programs that reference /var/spool/mail would be okay for one year. New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic link for about two years. - Dan
