At Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:53:16 +0200,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >> So the only way I can think of how to change this is to add another
> >> option to optionally remove the dovecot/ suffix from the directory, but
> >> is this really worth the trouble?
> >
> > I would appreciate such option too. For larg
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 03:50 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 24.3.2012, at 3.19, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the dovecot/
> >> suffix from other directories as well. That might be something worth doing
> >> (--without-package-suffix or
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 03:50 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 24.3.2012, at 3.19, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the dovecot/
> >> suffix from other directories as well. That might be something worth doing
> >> (--without-package-suffix or
On 23.3.2012, at 19.22, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
> :2012-03-23T12:53:Timo Sirainen:
>
>> Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the dovecot/
>> suffix from other directories as well. That might be something worth doing
>> (--without-package-suffix or something?).
>
On 24.3.2012, at 3.19, Noel Butler wrote:
>> Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the dovecot/
>> suffix from other directories as well. That might be something worth doing
>> (--without-package-suffix or something?).
> it is very easy to have a search path for config fil
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 12:53 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 23.3.2012, at 12.44, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
>
> > Timo wrote:
> >> So the only way I can think of how to change this is to add another
> >> option to optionally remove the dovecot/ suffix from the directory, but
> >> is this really wo
:2012-03-23T12:53:Timo Sirainen:
> Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the dovecot/
> suffix from other directories as well. That might be something worth doing
> (--without-package-suffix or something?).
I would suggest to have a --layout=gnu|opt
That would either do
On 23/03/2012 12:53, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 23.3.2012, at 12.44, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
Timo wrote:
So the only way I can think of how to change this is to add another
option to optionally remove the dovecot/ suffix from the directory, but
is this really worth the trouble?
I would appreci
On Mar 23, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> :2012-03-22T11:55:Noel Butler:
>>>
perhaps it should be renamed then, given it violates the known normal
for SYSCONF dir, you've just created another form of --datadir
>>>
>>> Not really. The way I see it works as expected.
>>
>>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, dovecot-requ...@dovecot.org wrote:
See http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2009-January/036131.html
Yes, I was also thinking about that, but it's about removing the
dovecot/ suffix from other directories as well. That might be
something worth doing (--without-package-suffix o
On 23.3.2012, at 12.44, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
> Timo wrote:
>> So the only way I can think of how to change this is to add another
>> option to optionally remove the dovecot/ suffix from the directory, but
>> is this really worth the trouble?
>
> I would appreciate such option too. For large d
Timo wrote:
> So the only way I can think of how to change this is to add another
> option to optionally remove the dovecot/ suffix from the directory, but
> is this really worth the trouble?
I would appreciate such option too. For large dedicated installations other
schemes than /etc/dovecot are
On 22.3.2012, at 10.30, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 07:28 +0100, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
>
>> :2012-03-22T11:55:Noel Butler:
>>
>>> perhaps it should be renamed then, given it violates the known normal
>>> for SYSCONF dir, you've just created another form of --datadir
>>
>
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 07:28 +0100, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
> :2012-03-22T11:55:Noel Butler:
>
> > perhaps it should be renamed then, given it violates the known normal
> > for SYSCONF dir, you've just created another form of --datadir
>
> Not really. The way I see it works as expected. Th
:2012-03-22T11:55:Noel Butler:
> perhaps it should be renamed then, given it violates the known normal
> for SYSCONF dir, you've just created another form of --datadir
Not really. The way I see it works as expected. The sysconf dir is the
root of the configuration dir. Then if the app so chooses
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:46 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 21.3.2012, at 15.26, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > The purpose of any build scripts --sysconfdir is to tell the
> > configuration to build in a path for its binaries configuration file(s).
> >
> > Dovecot 2.1.3, seems to insist that that di
On 21.3.2012, at 15.26, Noel Butler wrote:
> The purpose of any build scripts --sysconfdir is to tell the
> configuration to build in a path for its binaries configuration file(s).
>
> Dovecot 2.1.3, seems to insist that that directory is now /etc/dovecot/
> ignoring --sysconfdir=/etc as in 1.2.
The purpose of any build scripts --sysconfdir is to tell the
configuration to build in a path for its binaries configuration file(s).
Dovecot 2.1.3, seems to insist that that directory is now /etc/dovecot/
ignoring --sysconfdir=/etc as in 1.2.x and previous majors before that,
is this a bug? if n
18 matches
Mail list logo
