On 20 Jun 1999 01:51:09 CDT, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "RS" == Russell Steinthal <rms39@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>RS> 1. In mj_email's do_qmail routine, you hardcoded "majordomo"
rather
>RS> than using $whoami as an optimization;
>
>Yes; this is relatively bad and I've wondered about how to change
it. The
>real problem is that $whoami is a config variable and thus
changeable at
>virtually any time. Unfortunately we can't actually extract its
value in
>the qmail check code because we want to decide quickly if we should
handle
>the message or not and starting up the whole system would take way
too
>long.
>
>There are a couple of options, neither of which makes me really
happy:
>
>1) Hardcode what was given for 'whoami' during the setup dialogue
and hope
> nobody changes it.
>
>2) Have the code write the current value of 'whoami' out to a file
> somewhere that the qmail startup code users.
>
>I think #1 is probably sufficient. What do you think?
It would certainly be a step forward (although even that should be
prominently documented so that people who don't read the code are
aware of it). #2 is likely to be more foolproof, but I don't know
how much code it would require. (Another option is simply to include
things like mj2 in the hardcoded list; I'm not sure how many people
are actually using completely arbitrary values of whoami).
>A third option is to get away from the .qmail-default usage and
revert to
>your code for setting up all of the dotfiles, but I don't think it's
worth
>worrying about at this stage.
No, I wouldn't even consider this: the .qmail-default solution is
orders of magnitude cleaner than mine was.
>Actually I think this is a bug in the file query function. If I'm
>understanding correctly, you note that the code that asks where the
>.qmail-default file is will warn you that it doesn't exist because
it's
>looking in the current directory. Actually it's not supposed to be
warning
>in the first place; I didn't pass the flag that asks it to do so.
If you
>look in setup/query_util.pl for &ask_file, you'll probably see a few
logic
>errors. Does the patch at the end help?
[snip patch]
Umm... I'm sure I'm being an idiot somehow, but that patch refuses to
apply for me (hunk 2, to be specific). I just upgraded to the newest
version of GNU patch, but still no luck.
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rms39@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<steintr@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
NOTE: My address steintr@avnet.org will stop working in approximately
two weeks... Use one of the current alternatives listed above!
References:
|
|
