Tim Meadowcroft wrote: > > On Thursday 10 March 2011 18:06:04 Robert Spier wrote: > > Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2011, at 6:49, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > > Should we have plugins/qmail and plugins/postfix dirs? > > > > > > I like that idea. > > > > I'm not sure I do. The existing directories don't really line up that > > way, and I don't think we're going to have a huge number of > > postfix/qmail split plugins. So I see this more as a suffix. > > > > I wouldn't mind moving these into some sort of directory (maybe rcpt?) > > but moving plugins is hard, because everyone needs to update their > > config/plugins file. > > Are you just talking about the plugins config file understanding names as > paths > rather than as simply filenames (and presumably config files mirroring the > same > structure) - I would see this as a good thing (I can put my specific plugins > into local/ or similar, and symlinks can be used if I want to be fancy) ? I > presume you could leave all existing plugins in the "root" but suggest > migrating them over time...
No. The plugins config already understands directories just fine. And recent versions of qpsmtpd support a config file to set the plugin roots: qpsmtpd]$ cat config/plugin_dirs /home/smtp/qpsmtpd/plugins.site /home/smtp/qpsmtpd/plugins I was disagreeing with the proposed taxonomy of having a qmail and postfix directory, as it doesn't really fit with what we have right now: plugins]$ find . -type d . ./async ./async/queue ./virus ./queue ./logging ./auth ./ident -R
