[gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Jared H. Hudson]

I need a use item that will tell programs whether to build support for 
/var/spool/mail or ~/.maildir

for the ~/.maildir, I think "maildir" is appropiate.
For /var/spool/mail I do not know what the keyword should be...any ideas?

For example, procmail by default delivers to /var/spool/mail, but the 
ebuild we have changes that to deliver to ~/.maildir. I would like to 
make this a option based on a use item.

-Jared H.

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Grant Goodyear]

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 18:55, Jared H. Hudson wrote:
> I need a use item that will tell programs whether to build support for 
> /var/spool/mail or ~/.maildir
> 
> for the ~/.maildir, I think "maildir" is appropiate.
> For /var/spool/mail I do not know what the keyword should be...any ideas?
> 
> For example, procmail by default delivers to /var/spool/mail, but the 
> ebuild we have changes that to deliver to ~/.maildir. I would like to 
> make this a option based on a use item.

I suggest "mbox" or "maildir", since that's what almost everybody
calls the two major types of mailboxes.  Seemant points out that
only one flag is really needed, since mbox and maildir formats
are never used simultaneously system-wide.  Another alternative
would be to have a flag in /etc/rc.conf (or /etc/conf.d/mail,
if preferred) for MAILBOX_TYPE, although I suppose that it's
always possible that somebody might change schemes and then want
to know which packages were built w/ which mbox/maildir USE flags.

I've been wanting to implement this forever, and never got around
to it.  Since you're willing, pick your favorite approach
and go with it.  Feel free to rework any other parts of our
mail system that need updating.

Thanks,
Grant

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Arcady Genkin]

Grant Goodyear <goodyea@clemson.edu> writes:

>> I need a use item that will tell programs whether to build support for 
>> /var/spool/mail or ~/.maildir
[snip]
> I suggest "mbox" or "maildir", since that's what almost everybody
> calls the two major types of mailboxes.  

Let's not forget that the mbox can also live in the user's home
directory (i.e. ~/Mailbox).  It would be nice if this was also
supported.
-- 
Arcady Genkin
Don't read everything you believe.

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Jared H. Hudson]

Sounds like the mail box type should be a use line, since it's designed 
for compilation. But the location should be a rc.conf variable.

What do you think Grant/Arcady/others?

use items:
mbox and maildir

rc.conf variables:
MBOX_PATH
MAILDIR_PATH

-Jared H.

Arcady Genkin wrote:
> Grant Goodyear <goodyea@clemson.edu> writes:
> 
> 
>>>I need a use item that will tell programs whether to build support for 
>>>/var/spool/mail or ~/.maildir
>>
> [snip]
> 
>>I suggest "mbox" or "maildir", since that's what almost everybody
>>calls the two major types of mailboxes.  
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that the mbox can also live in the user's home
> directory (i.e. ~/Mailbox).  It would be nice if this was also
> supported.

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Grant Goodyear]

On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 15:37, Jared H. Hudson wrote:
> Sounds like the mail box type should be a use line, since it's designed 
> for compilation. But the location should be a rc.conf variable.
> 
> What do you think Grant/Arcady/others?
> 
> use items:
> mbox and maildir
> 
> rc.conf variables:
> MBOX_PATH
> MAILDIR_PATH
> 
> -Jared H.

Works for me!

-Grant-

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Thilo Bangert]

On Thursday, 18. April 2002 21:37, you wrote:
> Sounds like the mail box type should be a use line, since it's
> designed for compilation. But the location should be a rc.conf
> variable.
>
> What do you think Grant/Arcady/others?
>
> use items:
> mbox and maildir

what about the idea of just having one? (as they rarely will be used at 
the same time anyway)

hhm, i guess you can compile pine with support for both.. (?)

>
> rc.conf variables:
> MBOX_PATH
> MAILDIR_PATH

so what will this determine? the path to the mailboxes / maildirs...
i think thats what MAIL in the case of mailboxes and MAILDIR in case of 
maildirs are good for...

i'd rather fix the ebuilds of the MTA's to include their own correct 
and adjustable enviroment than duplicating this variable..

and last but not least, in qmail the user can change the system 
default, fx from ~/.maildir/ to ~/.mbox 

i might have gotten this all wrong though..

-- 
regards
Thilo - who wonders what mbox is good for - 

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Jared H. Hudson]

>>use items:
>>mbox and maildir
> 
> 
> what about the idea of just having one? (as they rarely will be used at 
> the same time anyway)
> 
> hhm, i guess you can compile pine with support for both.. (?)

What do you mean just having one? It makes sense to me for a user to put 
mbox or maildir in their USE items. Several programs, like pine, 
procmail, ect can handle both formats. And with patches more programs 
can handle both. So I think we need both use lines and have a user 
choose one, otherwise the default for that package will be chosen.

I thought about the MAIL variable, and it would make sense, unless you 
were wanting to compile for another machine, hence a specifically 
defined MBOX_PATH or MAILDIR_PATH makes more sense, IMO.

-Jared H.

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Thilo Bangert]

On Thursday, 18. April 2002 23:58, you wrote:
> >>use items:
> >>mbox and maildir
> >
> > what about the idea of just having one? (as they rarely will be
> > used at the same time anyway)
> >
> > hhm, i guess you can compile pine with support for both.. (?)
>
> What do you mean just having one? It makes sense to me for a user to
> put mbox or maildir in their USE items. Several programs, like pine,
> procmail, ect can handle both formats. And with patches more programs
> can handle both. So I think we need both use lines and have a user
> choose one, otherwise the default for that package will be chosen.
>

yes, you are right.

> I thought about the MAIL variable, and it would make sense, unless
> you were wanting to compile for another machine, hence a specifically
> defined MBOX_PATH or MAILDIR_PATH makes more sense, IMO.

i don't know the package that uses this, as i can not think of why this 
would be a compile time variable... 

IMHO this should only be a runtime variable, because of the fact, that 
(at least in some cases) it is up to the user to decide

so what package needs this?

>
> -Jared H.
>

-- 
regards
Thilo

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/spool/mail versus maildir: use item needed

[Jared H. Hudson]

For example in procmail right now, the procmail ebuilder uses sed to 
edit the procmail source to use maildir at ~/.maildir instead of 
/usr/spool/mail

I was going to add a use line so people can use the original mbox style 
/var/spool/mail, or if they choose maildir let MAILDIR_PATH tell the sed 
script what to change it to, that way it can be ~/Maildir or ~/.maildir

The same idea could apply to ebuild foo config when a user chooses to 
let ebuild configure their email server, ect. Note this config is 
optional and for most people would just be a start to configuring such 
an app. For example ebuild php-* config adds php stuff to apache, but of 
course anyone who runs apache is going to edit their config file as well 
most likely.

-Jared H.

Thilo Bangert wrote:
> On Thursday, 18. April 2002 23:58, you wrote:
> 
>>>>use items:
>>>>mbox and maildir
>>>
>>>what about the idea of just having one? (as they rarely will be
>>>used at the same time anyway)
>>>
>>>hhm, i guess you can compile pine with support for both.. (?)
>>
>>What do you mean just having one? It makes sense to me for a user to
>>put mbox or maildir in their USE items. Several programs, like pine,
>>procmail, ect can handle both formats. And with patches more programs
>>can handle both. So I think we need both use lines and have a user
>>choose one, otherwise the default for that package will be chosen.
>>
> 
> 
> yes, you are right.
> 
> 
>>I thought about the MAIL variable, and it would make sense, unless
>>you were wanting to compile for another machine, hence a specifically
>>defined MBOX_PATH or MAILDIR_PATH makes more sense, IMO.
> 
> 
> i don't know the package that uses this, as i can not think of why this 
> would be a compile time variable... 
> 
> IMHO this should only be a runtime variable, because of the fact, that 
> (at least in some cases) it is up to the user to decide
> 
> so what package needs this?
> 
> 
>>-Jared H.
>>
> 
>