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

Re: Conditionally include a file in the configuration



On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:26:49AM EST, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * romildo@xxxxxxxxxxx [2004-02-24 09:29 -0300]:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:27:02AM +0000, Jack Bertram wrote:

> >    source "~/.mutt/mailboxes.sh|"           # mailboxes
> > 
> > When running mutt I get the message:
> > 
> > Error in /home/romildo/.mutt/muttrc, line 161: 
> > /home/romildo/.mutt/mailboxes.sh|: stat: No such file or directory
> 
> That's a known bug in 1.5.6. Updating to the current cvs or applying the
> attached patch should help.

If you don't want to apply a whole patch, a quick workaround is to nuke
the stat(2) statement at the beginning of source_rc() (about midway
through init.c), essentially undoing the original patch that caused the
bug.  (The downside is that you then won't benefit from error detection
if you tell Mutt to source a nonexistant file, or a directory; Mutt will
just fail silently.)  It's also worth noting that the patch was modified
again about a week ago to allow FIFOs, so if you ever decide to use one
to supply an RC file, you'll find Mutt rejecting it unless you apply a
newer version of the patch attached to Nicolas' message.

You should really be updating to CVS anyway, since lots of bugs are fixed
there, and it takes several months before a release incorporating those
new fixes happens.  If for some reason you're too lazy to do so, you can
always get at an almost-current (generally a few days behind) snapshot by
browsing my Mutt build directory [1] or a tarball [2] autogenerated from
it.  I have a zero-patch policy under normal circumstances (except the
.po files), and an autogenerated diff [3] always tells what's different
between my version and the CVS HEAD as of when the tarball was generated.

 - Dave

[1]
http://www.bigfatdave.com/dave/download/from_cvs/mutt/

[2]
http://www.bigfatdave.com/dave/download/from_cvs/mutt.tgz

[3]
http://www.bigfatdave.com/dave/download/from_cvs/diff.mutt

-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel

Attachment: pgpdeG5FFZ3EH.pgp
Description: PGP signature