Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- To: tytso@MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
- Cc: quinlan@transmeta.com, alan@cymru.net, gordon.m.tetlow@vanderbilt.edu, florian@suse.de, hpa@transmeta.com, ewt@redhat.com, fhs-discuss@ucsd.edu, ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org, lsb-test@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@linuxbase.org, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
- From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:15:37 +0000 (GMT)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 199901260015.AAA21674@snowcrash.cymru.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199901252309.SAA02711@dcl> from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" at Jan 25, 99 06:09:01 pm
> but I haven't heard any technical reasons besides, "Moving spool
> directories is hard". When I and others have pointed out that moving
> the spool directory isn't required; just a symlink, I have heard dead
> silence. So the lack of technical discussion, but just a stony-silence
> "No!" is rather disappointing as far as I'm concerned.
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
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 ?
Reply to: