On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:40:42AM +0000, akhiezer wrote: > > Hi, > > > On the new dovecot page ( > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/server/dovecot.html), the > section > 'Command Explanations' lists the five options '--with-ldap' et seq: yet none > of > them actually appear in the commands. I've noticed a similar thing in several > places in blfs74 book. > > > Apols if have missed an earlier discussion on that, but: is this an error in > rendering; or is it kindof that those '--with-ldap' &c options are really > meant > as a sort-of subsection concerning other main parameters that the user might > want to consider? But in any case, them appearing as-is just looks like it's > an > error (e.g. "has a chunk of text been lopped off the 'configure ...' > commmand?"), > and one repeated elsewhere in the book. > They are tagged as <option> in the xml, instead of <command>, and different browsers may render them differently.
In firefox, the command --disable-static shows in italic monospace, although the directory class overrides that to what I suppose is bold monospace for the moduledir. The options are rendered in normal weight monospace. Yeah, I would prefer italic for options but I'm not touching that stuff (the xml itself) with the proverbial barge-pole. > > In a related vein, given that four of the above-noted five options are stated > to be re auth, could I also recommend noting that (at least) the following > auth > methods are enabled by default: > ---- > --with-shadow Build with shadow password support (auto) > --with-pam Build with PAM support (auto) > --with-bsdauth Build with BSD authentication support (auto) > --with-vpopmail Build with vpopmail support (auto) > ---- > I think it's worth stating that explicitly so that folks can see at-a-glance > that dovecot does handle those ( - don't hide its light under a bushel). One > of > the central considerations, of course, in choosing a pop/imap server is in > what > authentication methods can it handle, and how it would in this respect > integrate > with other parts of infrastructure. Sure, folks considering using it > seriously, > would do their due diligence anyhow and not just make a decision based on a > single 3rd-party page (in this case, the blfs page): but still, it doesn't > hurt > to state it up-front by noting the default methods additional to said list. > If something is optional and automatically detected, we don't usually add an explanation of a switch to enable it. Unless an editor thought it was worth mentioning. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
