[gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1155 bytes --]

Hi All,

A mutt update today complained about which database to use for hcache:

!!! Problem resolving dependencies for mail-client/mutt from @selected          
.. done!

!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "mail-client/mutt" has unmet requirements.
- mail-client/mutt-1.9.4-r1::gentoo USE="crypt gdbm gpg hcache imap lmdb mbox 
nls nntp pop sasl smime smtp ssl -berkdb -debug -doc -gnutls -gpgme -idn -
kerberos -libressl -notmuch -pgp_classic (-prefix) -qdbm (-selinux) -slang -
smime_classic -tokyocabinet -vanilla" ABI_X86="(64)"

  The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
    hcache? ( exactly-one-of ( berkdb gdbm lmdb qdbm tokyocabinet ) )
  
  The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression:
    hcache? ( exactly-one-of ( berkdb gdbm lmdb qdbm tokyocabinet ) ) imap? ( 
ssl ) pop? ( ssl ) nntp? ( ssl ) smime? ( ssl !gnutls ) smime_classic? ( ssl !
gnutls ) smtp? ( ssl ) sasl? ( any-of ( imap pop smtp nntp ) ) kerberos? ( 
any-of ( imap pop smtp nntp ) )

So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.  
Which one is best to use?  What have you chosen?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Floyd Anderson]

Hi Mick,

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100
Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.

Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.

>Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?

I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very 
academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific 
benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].

Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:

    “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
    messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”

Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within 
Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring 
it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).


References:
  [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/contrib/hcache-bench>


-- 
Regards,
floyd

Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]

On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote:
> Hi Mick,
> 
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100
> 
> Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.
> 
> Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.
> 
> >Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?
> 
> I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very
> academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific
> benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].
> 
> Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:
> 
>     “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
>     messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”
> 
> Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within
> Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring
> it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).
> 
> 
> References:
>   [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/contrib/hcache-bench>

Thanks Floyd, good information.

I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt.  I 
see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here.  Is there a 
benefit from switching?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Floyd Anderson]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:42:49 +0100
Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote:
>> Hi Mick,
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100
>>
>> Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.
>>
>> Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.
>>
>> >Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?
>>
>> I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very
>> academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific
>> benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].
>>
>> Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:
>>
>>     “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
>>     messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”
>>
>> Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within
>> Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring
>> it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).
>>
>>
>> References:
>>   [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/contrib/hcache-bench>
>
>Thanks Floyd, good information.
>
>I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt.  I
>see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here.  Is there a
>benefit from switching?

I think yes but I’m also using both here. Mutt for testing different 
behaviour (sometimes issues) of NeoMutt and NeoMutt as as my day-to-day 
mail client workhorse.

The main reason for my switch to NeoMutt was that I’ve had no luck with 
colourisation in Mutt (nearly two years ago). TBH, afterwards I realised 
that the problem was sitting in front of the screen and used 
sys-libs/slang instead of sys-libs/ncurses), so no reason for a switch.

But I like the faster development/release cycle, the goal to clean up 
the 20 years old code base and some features [1] of NeoMutt, e.g. 
Lua-scripting, sidebar; which sometimes find their way into Mutt. I have 
no experiences contributing patches to Mutt but regarded to NeoMutt, it 
meet my expectations and that is fun.

Back to the topic, with a another example. As far as I can tell you 
cannot change the hcache backend without recompiling Mutt where NeoMutt 
implements the ‘$header_cache_backend’ configuration variable for.

But in the end I can only say forget all things above, I’m only more 
familiar with NeoMutt than with Mutt.


References:
  [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/feature.html>



-- 
Regards,
floyd

[gentoo-user] Re: Mutt database option

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2018-04-07 17:12, Floyd Anderson wrote:

> But I like the faster development/release cycle, the goal to clean up
> the 20 years old code base and some features [1] of NeoMutt,
> e.g. Lua-scripting, sidebar; which sometimes find their way into
> Mutt. I have no experiences contributing patches to Mutt but regarded
> to NeoMutt, it meet my expectations and that is fun.

I have tried contributing enhancements (the same ones) to both projects,
and in the end I had to give up in the case of mutt and I maintained
them as private patches for a while.  Then I learned about neomutt
(seriously, I didn't know about it!) and they were accepted right away,
after a style pass.

mutt places very large weight on backward compatibility (and when a
troglodyte like me says this, it really means something!)  I don't mean
it as a value judgment, just pointing out there is a difference.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Mutt database option

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Ian.

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 01:04:49 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

[ .... ]

> I have tried contributing enhancements (the same ones) to both projects,
> and in the end I had to give up in the case of mutt and I maintained
> them as private patches for a while.  Then I learned about neomutt
> (seriously, I didn't know about it!) and they were accepted right away,
> after a style pass.

> mutt places very large weight on backward compatibility (and when a
> troglodyte like me says this, it really means something!)  I don't mean
> it as a value judgment, just pointing out there is a difference.

And yet - after I am finished reading an email, I am used to returning
to the message index by pressing 'i'.  This no longer works in (Gentoo's
version of) mutt 1.9.4.  Instead one must press 'x'.  It's driving me
crazy.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Mutt database option

[Mick]

On 08-04-2018 ,11:44:25, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 01:04:49 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
> > I have tried contributing enhancements (the same ones) to both projects,
> > and in the end I had to give up in the case of mutt and I maintained
> > them as private patches for a while.  Then I learned about neomutt
> > (seriously, I didn't know about it!) and they were accepted right away,
> > after a style pass.
> 
> > mutt places very large weight on backward compatibility (and when a
> > troglodyte like me says this, it really means something!)  I don't mean
> > it as a value judgment, just pointing out there is a difference.
> 
> And yet - after I am finished reading an email, I am used to returning
> to the message index by pressing 'i'.  This no longer works in (Gentoo's
> version of) mutt 1.9.4.  Instead one must press 'x'.  It's driving me
> crazy.
> 
> -- 
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Interestingly, my mutt shows a message saying "No news server defined!"
for a few seconds and then returns me to the index.  Usually I press the
down arrow to read the next message and so on until I run out of new
messages to read, which then also returns me to the index.

[gentoo-user] Re: Mutt database option

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2018-04-08 13:16, Mick wrote:

> > And yet - after I am finished reading an email, I am used to returning
> > to the message index by pressing 'i'.  This no longer works in (Gentoo's
> > version of) mutt 1.9.4.  Instead one must press 'x'.  It's driving me
> > crazy.
> 
> Interestingly, my mutt shows a message saying "No news server defined!"
> for a few seconds and then returns me to the index.  Usually I press the
> down arrow to read the next message and so on until I run out of new
> messages to read, which then also returns me to the index.

I mostly use down-arrow _if_ the mini-index area tells me that the next
message is unread.  If it is not (which can happen with sorting by
thread-date) but I can see the next unread message in the mini-index, I
jump to it with Control-N.  Only if I cannot see the next unread item in
mini-index, I drop back to full index (with 'q')  and pick the one I
want to read next.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Mutt database option

[Philip Webb]

180408 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> After I am finished reading an email,
> I am used to returning to the message index by pressing 'i'.
> This no longer works in (Gentoo's version of) mutt 1.9.4.
>Instead one must press 'x'.  It's driving me crazy.

I've always used Most as pager with Mutt : it's easy to set that up.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca