Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-20 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> > I would *much* prefer this, I just didn't think I'd be able to win > > the argument. > > Since this is "the objection that won't die", I'm currently > considering four "ways out" of the mess created by this change that > went into FHS 2.0. > > 1. totally revert, drop /var/mail, and specify /

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-21 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> > I agree. I also don't think it's a big deal. What's important is that > > all of the MUA's get compiled so that they look for the mail spool in > > /var/mail. If /var/mail is a symlink to /var/spool/mail, or /u3/mail, > > or something else --- that's fine. > > Adding that symlink can be don

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-21 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> > Please think about it and stay with /var/spool/mail. Right now, /var/mail and /var/spool/mail both suffer the same problem: whichever is used, some people need to use the other, hence it is a *requirement* that both can be used by programs. Given that, it is better to use /var/mail, because t

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-25 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> >> New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic > >> link for about two years. > > Erik Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two > > years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-26 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> 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 dir

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-26 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> 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 > category 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 pa

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-27 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> Most Mail User Agents for standard Unix systems look in /var/mail/ > for the user's mailbox. So if qmail is switching to ~/Mailbox, then > they have to solve the problem for all of the various MUA's out there, > and that is really qmail's and mutt's problem. I assume someone in that > community

Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0

1999-01-31 Thread H. Peter Anvin
> > I'd live with that, but I'd prefer just /var/mail be used and if vendors > want to create a symlink for backward compatibility or even from > /var/mail to /var/spool for easy upgrades, let them.. (creating a > symlink from /var/mail to /var/spool/mail if /var/mail does not exist is > likely h