On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:56:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > [ Note that I'm not particularly disappointed that someone objects this > > proposal, I think we could well wait for FHS 2.1 to be official before > > going any further ]. > > FHS 2.1 includes /var/mail, but says it may be a symlink if need be. > > So essentially Ian is trying to kill the proposal before FHS 2.1 has a > chance to be published and recommend this sort of approach. Wonderful.
I forgot to mention that I *am* a little bit disappointed by the reasoning given by Ian to kill the proposal, specially, that "FHS is wrong". Ian, why do you dislike /var/mail for new systems and /var/spool/mail for old systems? Eventually, we will have to support both, since we aim for FHS compliance. Maybe you want a careful release-by-release plan, something like this?: 1. A new base-files which support /var/mail is uploaded to potato. 2. *After* potato is released, we make policy to follow FHS, which says that packages should reference /var/mail internally. Packages doing so should depend on the base-files in potato. Why do you say this may not be done right? Thanks. -- "295667c0f74b4d3779334eaf98012a62" (a truly random sig)
