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