Re: Configuration

On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 04:29:22 Walt Armour wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Jesse D. Sightler wrote:
> > Um, perhaps a silly question, but since when would there be users who
> > "just
> > can't get procmail on their system".  Virtually every Linux dist
> > installs this
> > automatically, and it's readily available for most others.  What's the
> > difference
> > between requiring that and requiring some library (like, say,
> > libPropList for example).
> > 
> We can always dream about Balsa being ported to other platforms where
> there is no procmail.  :)
> As for the difference, aside from building it I'm not aware of any
> configuration necessary for libPropList.  procmail definitely needs
> configuration and that has been my sticking point.  :)

And again, I point out that the purpose of Balsa requiring procmail as 
a dependency would be that Balsa's built in filtering code would rely
on calls to procmail to do it's job.  :)  From the user's perspective
it would be no different than the dependency on libPropList.

In other words, libPropList would require configuration if Balsa didn't
provide a GUI method for performing the same functions.  It would be completely
possible and feasable to edit .balsarc with a text editor.  It would
also be ludicrous to expect actual users to do this.  procmail is the same
way, as one COULD require editing of the config files for procmail, it
would just be silly to do so.  :)

You are right that the discussion is moot, however, as someone is already working
on filtering support for Balsa.  From what I have seen of it so far, it 
will be better than anything a simple front-end for procmail could
have ever done, anyway.

Jesse D. Sightler

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]