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

[Philip Brown]

Something I forgot to mention:
I am also thinking that for a lot of cases, mutt users will take
whatever is auto-generated.
But for those situations where a sysadmin cares to make default muttrc
adjustments, it is more likely to be a site-wide adjustment, than a
machine-by-machine adjustment.

For example, to force a common domain name  to be used when sending email.
Or to specify the location of the standard mailspool.
These things are not likely to be different between machines at the same site.




On 9/23/10, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>
> *wave*
>
>
>>> 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
>>
>> If we deliver to /opt/csw/etc and the sysadmin wants to have different
>> configurations he has to copy the configuration manually over.
>
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
> if a sysadmin wants different configurations on a per machine basis,
> then he's going to have to "copy the configuration [] over" and
> customise it to each machine, either way.
> if on the other hand, a sysadmin wants the same configuration
> everywhere, there is a clear "win" for him, for /opt/csw/etc  over
> /etc/opt/csw
>
>> The (open) question is what is the most common use case.
>
> Yup, i agree.
> Any suggestions for resolution? polling our users list? or the mutt
> users list perhaps?
>
>
>>> *our* "user" is the sysadmin, and we are supposed to be making things
>>> easier for "our users".
>
>
>> The main argument is: I shifted the location to /etc/opt/csw two
>> releases ago which you accepted and I don't want to ping-pong
>> the configuration depending on where the vane is pointing.
>
> well, I dont deeply dig into Every package, Every time.
> This release I happened to have more time to dig. Lucky you ;-)
> I dont think "well, we made a mistake a while back, so lets stick with
> it" is best policy. I think we should better determine, "was it a
> mistake to do this?"
>
>
> As I mentioned, I have administered mutt before at a site, although I
> dont do that much any more.
> I am guessing that it would be correct to say that a vast majority of
> our mutt users are going to be either of the "one machine, so it
> doesnt matter" variety, or the "we're installing mutt at our site,
> which has one domain, so we want everything the same" variety.
> I would GUESS that it would be at least 90% of our user base for mutt.
> In contrast, I think the "we want to have different mutt
> configurations per machine" user set, would be less than 10%.  Would
> you agree with that estimate, or would you prefer that we actually
> research it?
>