Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#77553 - [mutt] Modify current sysconfdir
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Martin Bock (marttin) - Friday, 17 February 2023, 12:42 GMT
Last edited by David Runge (dvzrv) - Friday, 14 July 2023, 10:31 GMT
Opened by Martin Bock (marttin) - Friday, 17 February 2023, 12:42 GMT
Last edited by David Runge (dvzrv) - Friday, 14 July 2023, 10:31 GMT
|
DetailsHello,
in the current PKGBUILD for 'extra/mutt' points the sysconfdir variable to '/etc' and is populated with the 3 files: 'Muttrc', 'Muttrc.dist' and 'Muttrc.gpg.dist'. I feel it is a good thing to change the sysconfdir variable to '/etc/mutt' with regard to reduce cluttering in '/etc'. Do you see any problems with this suggestion? Thanks, Martin |
This task depends upon
2.2.9-3 reads, signs and sends like his ancestors: Obviously
it gathers the new located system wide and my user specific
configuration files. Bingo!
The elimination of both *.dist files is IMHO reasonable. Both
of them were no configuration but example files.
It's OK for me to close the ticket and transfer 2.2.9-3 to 'extra'.
Thank you.
Martin
Mutt has two (not three) files in /etc: Muttrc and Muttrc.gpg.
Using a new subfolder for two files is a debatable proposal, I don't have a strong opinion about it.
But I disagree with changing this in Arch without debating this upstream.
Arch is the only distro with this change
And that's despite this:
"Arch strives to keep its packages as close to the original upstream software as possible. Patches are applied only when necessary to ensure an application compiles and runs correctly with the other packages installed on an up-to-date Arch system."
Why not go to the Mutt project and propose this change there instead of doing this in Arch?
mutt =< 2.2.9-2 installes three (not two) files to '/etc':
+---
| martin@asgard % pacman -Ql mutt|grep etc
| mutt /etc/
| mutt /etc/Muttrc
| mutt /etc/Muttrc.dist
| mutt /etc/Muttrc.gpg.dist
| martin@asgard % pacman -Qi mutt
| Name : mutt
| Version : 2.2.9-1
| [ ... ]
+---
In addition is Arch not alone with the install of the system
configuration to '/etc/mutt', because Gentoo's mutt ebuild
installs it since years with '--sysconfdir=${EPREFIX}/etc/${PN}'
also to '/etc/mutt'.
BTW: I understand the point, but I don't like incorrect statements.
A way to regard all opinions could be another pkg-version (-4) with
the 'sysconfdir' again with plain '/etc', but which installs only
'Muttrc' and gets rid of the two '*.dist' files. An upstream-clean
installation without cluttering '/etc'.
Comments?
I agree that shipping the package with just /etc/Muttrc would be ideal.
Muttrc.dist is a duplicate.
And Muttrc.gpg(.dist) lives in /usr/share/doc/mutt/samples/gpg.rc (also a duplicate :)
that the cause for reopening the closed bug report
is gone, when mutt is shipped with its main
configuration file living as '/etc/Muttrc'. There
is no need for both of the '*dist' files in '/etc'.
OTOH this requires a new mutt package.
I suggest to leave this bug report open for a few
days in case someone else has valid considerations
to all of this.
@dvzrv: Is this OK for you?
This is also more in line with the design of XDG_CONFIG_HOME on a per user-home basis.
@ilf: Whether or not upstream defaults to using it that way is not really that important, since we're doing these type of changes for integrational purposes. If you think, that it could be a good upstream default, feel free to bring it to their attention. Thanks! :)