From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E40F915800A for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C8753E0C97; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887A4E0C44 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qR64z-000748-FB for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 09:15:33 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: "Nuno Silva" Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 08:16:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2313990.ElGaqSPkdT@wstn> <20230728193702.34c49410@raph.localdomain> <1905666e-d3a2-0720-d85c-ddd7a2a7336d@youngman.org.uk> <86wmyj10td.fsf@gentoo.org> <76dffd3b-ebbd-f8a1-5d5e-bfa3e0c5bdac@youngman.org.uk> <86jzui250x.fsf@gentoo.org> <6b8678df-beb0-9b0d-3fd0-eed286add22f@youngman.org.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-Archives-Salt: 52d16279-9c43-4911-938e-c59e3875d39d X-Archives-Hash: 286fca16773861f34397e1471300110e On 2023-07-29, Wols Lists wrote: > On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote: >> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that. Please check CONFIG_PROTECT >> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT >> >> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults. > > And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why > Dovecot does it right, and Postfix does it wrong. > > WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.) > > The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or > not. I never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me > etc-update, and it never does any damage. > > But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the > fundamental blunder of mixing distro defaults and local config in the > SAME FILE. So yes it does offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, > I've just trashed my local config and have to rebuild it. > > At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config > separate, that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and > dispatch-conf are gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you > use dovecot/local.conf, it's a sign of good design by the upstream > application, and etc-update or dispatch-conf are completely > UNNECESSARY. > > Cheers, > Wol If you have a single file both with defaults (either as settings or commented out) and your changes, you get to see when defaults change, and it might be easier to notice, handle and adapt if some change requires adjusting the modified settings. I'd say having separate files also makes it possible to miss configuration changes. -- Nuno Silva