Right now the lsb package requires /var/spool/rwho because the lsb test looks for it. However, frankly I think this is wrong.
If you look at the LSB specification it is clear that the /var/spool/rwho is getting pulled in because of the inclusion of FHS 2.2. It also says "The FHS allows many components or subsystems to be optional. An application must check for the existence of an optional component before using it, and should behave in a reasonable manner if the optional component is not present." [1] So I took a look at the FHS 2.2 to see what it said about /var/spool/rwho. Which says about a variety of directories under /var/spool: "The following directories, or symbolic links to directories, must be in /var/spool, if the corresponding subsystem is installed" [2] And specifically mentions that rwho is an optional component. As a result the requirement for /var/spool/rwho in the lsb package IMHO actually violates the LSB specification, which actually allows for those optional components not to be installed. If the LSB test is actually requiring that directory to exist that the test is wrong. Additionally, the only applications that should be messing with the files in /var/spool/rwho is rwho and rwhod. The specification does not provide a format for those files, so any other application using them would be straying off the LSB path anyway and into possible conflicting formats (if someone were to ever reimplement rwho in a slightly different way). [1] http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB/execenvfhs.html [2] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-5.14.html -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you." -- Nietzsche
