Re: Installation fails because of mutt_dotlock
On 2005-02-03 00:00:49 +0000, Paul Walker wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> Why would they do that...?
This is what I currently do. I need to do that each time I resintall
Mutt. :(
Any solution based on ignoring any error if the setgid bit can't be
set won't work: Mutt would open mailboxes in /var/mail read only.
> > 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..?
I'm going to look at it.
> > 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.
This is both. Imagine that a user wants to install Mutt in his home
directory while no system mutt_dotlock is available... This could
still be useful, but probably in very rare cases.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA