[csw-maintainers] [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mutt, mutt_base, mutt_ncurses, mutt_slang

[Philip Brown]

On 9/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Am 18.09.2010 um 16:51 schrieb Philip Brown:
>...
>> the reason I'm being particular about this, is that it would seem far
>> more likely to me for a site to want to have all machines deploy mutt
>> with the SAME configuration.(and I have had specific experience as a
>> site admin doing this with mutt )
>>
>> Putting the default location in /etc makes that much more difficult.
>> whereas if you put the default in /opt/csw/etc, they could make it a
>> symlink, in the unlikely event they wanted zones to be different
>
> Either way, by symlinking /etc/opt/csw/muttrc to /opt/csw/etc/muttrc or
> vice versa you can have the desired behaviour.

That has the same behaviour for an end user, but not for sysadmin.
If you say the default is /etc/opt/csw/muttrc, and you then require to
symlink back to /opt/csw/etc for supporting a single global config..
the admin then has to hit Every Single Machine, and make that symlink.
That can be irritating to maintain, for a site that is centered around
global configurations, like a simple shared /opt/csw

*our* "user" is the sysadmin, and we are supposed to be making things
easier for "our users".

> That being said I would
> value consistency higher than to select where configs are put on a
> package-by-package basis. And as we have decided with /etc/opt/csw as
> default for configurations I think it is better to put everything in
> there as you can still link back if you need it.

"consistency" does not mean "no exceptions". Also, I believe that
there was still agreed support for global, non-/etc/opt
configurations, *IF* it makes more sense. So then the question is,
does it make more sense?

Do you agree, or disagree, with my premise, that it is "[far more]
likely ...for a site to want to have all machines deploy mutt with the
SAME configuration."

If you, and/or other who are regular mutt admins, can honestly say
that it is now more likely to have machine-unique mutt configs, then
I'll let this go.
However, I'm skeptical that things have changed that much since last I
was a sysadmin for mutt.