<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Installation fails because of mutt_dotlock



On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:49:32AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> The problem it that it overrides the possible mutt_dotlock installed
> by the user (e.g. it could be a symlink to /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock).

Too many "it"s. Do you mean the user could have installed a symlink? Why
would they do that...?

> 1) The --enable-external-dotlock could take an optional value, that would
> be an existing mutt_dotlock program. In this case, Mutt shouldn't install
> mutt_dotlock, and $dotlock_program would default to the string given as
> the --enable-external-dotlock value. For instance:

That sounds like it might work. When can you have a patch ready..?

> 2) Have an option to make dotlocking optional, i.e. if Mutt (or
> mutt_dotlock) doesn't have enough permission for some particular

That's mutt proper; your problem seems to be with the installation of mutt,
not mutt itself, as far as I can tell.

-- 
Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature