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

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

1999-01-31 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 07:14:04PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read > > "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both > /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system > has a mail spool. The p

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

1999-01-30 Thread Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Alan Cox wrote: > I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read > > "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both > /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system > has a mail spool. The preferred reference n

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

1999-01-30 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read > > "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both > /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system > has a mail spool. The preferred reference name is /

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

1999-01-30 Thread Dale Scheetz
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Alan Cox wrote: > > I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read > > "The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both > /var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system > has a mail spool. The preferred referenc

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

1999-01-30 Thread Alan Cox
> Technical reasons for making the change; > > a. Compatibility with the majority of existing unix systems. Incompatibility with the majority of Linux systems. Incompatibility with the majority of Linux packages. > b. See a. It can not be stressed enough. If FHS is ever to get OUT > of

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

1999-01-30 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> > 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 > > "N

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

1999-01-27 Thread Husain Al-Mohssen
MTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Wys³any: 26 stycznia 1999 01:16 > Do: Theodore Y. Ts'o > DW: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL > PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL > PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROT

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

1999-01-27 Thread Joseph Carter
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:51:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote: > Also, I suspect that some people might be confusing ~/Mailbox and > ~/Maildir issues. These are two completely different issues. Maildir > comes from Qmail, but my guess is that ~/Mailbox didn't. Qmail has a > program that will automatica

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

1999-01-27 Thread Rafal Pietrak
Od: Alan Cox[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wys³any: 26 stycznia 1999 01:16 Do: Theodore Y. Ts'o DW: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTE

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

1999-01-27 Thread Joseph Carter
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 05:37:53PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > 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

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

1999-01-27 Thread Brian May
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >> 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

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

1999-01-27 Thread Kragen Sitaker
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > 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 p

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

1999-01-27 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
From: Florian La Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:44:20 +0100 How can changing from /var/spool/mail to /var/mail be a "full solution" for the next years to come? Many people think that the mail-dir solution that e.g. qmail and mutt support is the real solution

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

1999-01-27 Thread Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Alan Cox wrote: > > The mail spool MUST be accessible through /var/mail AND /var/spool/mail, > > and spool files MUST take the form /var/{spool/}mail/$LOGNAME. Either > > /var/mail or /var/spool/mail, or both, MAY be symbolic links to another > > directory. > > That sounds g

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

1999-01-26 Thread Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo
This is getting WAY out of hand here. How about this: The mail spool MUST be accessible through /var/mail AND /var/spool/mail, and spool files MUST take the form /var/{spool/}mail/$LOGNAME. Either /var/mail or /var/spool/mail, or both, MAY be symbolic links to another directory. It is RECOMMENDED

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

1999-01-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Ted" == Theodore Y Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ted> I keep hearing people claim that distribution folks are saying "ick", Ted> but I haven't heard any technical reasons besides, "Moving spool Ted> directories is hard". Fine. Here are a few. I, and a number of other

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

1999-01-26 Thread Ben Collins
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:27:13PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > I'll give you one solid reason, uniformity across unix platforms is a > > must have if unix, especially free unices, are going to succesfully > > If we are in marketing mode let me point out we are not Unix in the first > place and that

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

1999-01-26 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 07:19:20AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > I'll give you one solid reason, uniformity across unix platforms is a > must have if unix, especially free unices, are going to succesfully > dominate the market. Sun/AIX/HP-UX/OSF/SCO are not going to change, > but we could prove ou

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

1999-01-26 Thread Alan Cox
> I'll give you one solid reason, uniformity across unix platforms is a > must have if unix, especially free unices, are going to succesfully If we are in marketing mode let me point out we are not Unix in the first place and that C:\> is the standard > I don't see a connection between /var/spoo

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

1999-01-26 Thread Ben Collins
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:33:27PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 07:09:34PM -0500, Kragen Sitaker 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 al

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

1999-01-26 Thread Alan Cox
> But I don't think the FHS should be specifying the actual location of > the files at all. True, the FHS should not cause too much pain for the Ok good we agree on this > The only thing that really matters is what pathnames applications can > count upon to work. Given that the rest of the wor

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

1999-01-26 Thread t . sippel-dau
The keyboard of Kragen Sitaker emitted at some point in time: > > 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 distributio

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

1999-01-26 Thread Florian La Roche
> At least that way applications that want to use the same dirctory as the > vast majority of other Unix systems will work without needing a special > case for Linux. However, I would much rather see us adopt the full, > correct solution, rather than this half-measure. How can changing from /var/

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

1999-01-26 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 07:09:34PM -0500, Kragen Sitaker 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 > > reach

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

1999-01-26 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:15:37 + (GMT) > 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 hear

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

1999-01-26 Thread Richard Gooch
Alan Cox writes: > > 2. Disk space management. > > We've proved between us that both views are held here. This therefore is a > rather spurious claim. A (maybe) symlink called /var/spool/mail that points > somewhere arbitary is all that is needed for this issue. The FHS need > say nothing else I

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

1999-01-26 Thread Alan Cox
> 1. Interoperability with other systems. 10+ million Linux boxes use /var/spool/mail. Its also a spurious claim. All existing tools assume linux uses /var/spool/mail. Other systems even sharing via NFS dont get problems with this /var/spool usage > 2. Disk space management. We've proved between

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

1999-01-26 Thread Alan Cox
> 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 rat

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 Kragen Sitaker
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 directory (i.

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

1999-01-25 Thread Kragen Sitaker
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Erik Troan wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > > New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic > > link for about two years. > > No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two > years -- we've already p

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

1999-01-25 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
I keep hearing people claim that distribution folks are saying "ick", 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 o

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

1999-01-25 Thread Daniel Quinlan
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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

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

1999-01-25 Thread Erik Troan
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > Ten years. > > Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes > in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines > in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs). You seem to be ignoring the upgrade issue. Al

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

1999-01-25 Thread Erik Troan
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > New systems would need to have a /var/spool/mail -> /var/mail symbolic > link for about two years. No, forever. Red Hat is promising an upgrade path for a lot longer then two years -- we've already provided upgradeable distributions for 3.5. Erik ---

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

1999-01-25 Thread Daniel Quinlan
t sippel-dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ten years. Are you serious? The Linux community has already made larger changes in far far less time. We're talking about modifying one or two lines in 10 or 20 source packages (like src RPMs). It was several years ago already that we dropped some of

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

1999-01-25 Thread t . sippel-dau
The keyboard of Daniel Quinlan emitted at some point in time: > 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 r

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

1999-01-25 Thread Daniel Quinlan
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, SuS

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

1999-01-25 Thread Alan Cox
> I thought the purpose of this project (at least the FHS) is to create a > standard > of what the filesystem should look like, not necessarily what it currently > looks > like. Just because `Everyone is doing it' (tm) doesn't mean it's right. > Personally, I want Linux to be clean and elegant in

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

1999-01-21 Thread Gordon Tetlow
Florian La Roche wrote: > > I can also see some points why /var/mail would be a better standard point > if we would make a "new" decision about this. But Linux has a large user > base now and after the move from /var/spool/mail to /var/mail, we would > not have gained a lot. So why do it? > > Ther

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

1999-01-21 Thread Erik Troan
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Given that, it is better to use /var/mail, because the mail inbox > directory is *not* a spool (a daemon transshipment point -- the mail > *spool* is /var/spool/mqueue.) Putting it under /var/spool causes > disk space management problems. Moving it on

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

1999-01-21 Thread Scott K. Ellis
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Florian La Roche wrote: > There are reasons why all distributions stayed with /var/spool/mail. > Even Debian who also thinks a lot about making things sane/clean has > stayed with /var/spool/mail. Note that Debian has not yet moved from FSSTND to FHS for the most part, and re

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

1999-01-21 Thread bandregg
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:53:32 -0800 (PST), "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: >Given that, it is better to use /var/mail, because the mail inbox >directory is *not* a spool (a daemon transshipment point -- the mail >*spool* is /var/spool/mqueue.) Putting it under /var/spool causes >disk space management prob

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

1999-01-21 Thread Roeland Th. Jansen
> Sorry for writing the same several times again. Since I have moved from > /var/spool/mail to /var/mail and back again, I know what's it like and > I know that having only one dir instead is more sane/clean than several > ones. well, I tend to agree here. I moved to /var/mail and added a symlink

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

1999-01-21 Thread Florian La Roche
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:53:32PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > 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

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

1999-01-21 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 Florian La Roche
> 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 done easily by

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

1999-01-21 Thread Florian La Roche
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Erik Troan wrote: > On 20 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > > 1. totally revert, drop /var/mail, and specify /var/spool/mail > > 2. partially revert, /var/spool/mail is a directory and /var/mail > > must be a symbolic link to it > > 3. allow a /va

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

1999-01-20 Thread Erik Troan
On 20 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > 1. totally revert, drop /var/mail, and specify /var/spool/mail > 2. partially revert, /var/spool/mail is a directory and /var/mail > must be a symbolic link to it > 3. allow a /var/spool/mail directory, provided that /var/mail is > a symbolic link

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

1999-01-20 Thread Anthony Towns
(on /var/mail vs /var/spool/mail) On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 12:19:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > 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, a

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

1999-01-20 Thread Theodore Y. Ts'o
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:26 -0800 (PST) I believe the FHS 2.0 change was right on target. Just about every UNIX implementation today has moved away from /var/spool/mail to /var/mail, and it has technical advantages. If anything, sp

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

1999-01-20 Thread Daniel Quinlan
[ I added the FHS and debian-devel mailing lists to the Cc list, so a huge number of people are now being Cc'ed -- sorry. ] Florian La Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So if there are no other bigger standards that would make it very >> convenient to move all Linux-distributions to /var/mai