On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:57:50PM +1300, Fintec wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:52 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:50:48AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 10:47 +1300, Fintec wrote:
Our server is an CentOS4.4 box and we use the atrpms built RPMs for installing dovecot. I am wanting to use the sieve plug-in so I've followed the dovecot wiki instructions, downloaded the files from CVS, but I'm not sure what configure options to use. When I try without any options I get:
dovecot-config not found from /usr/src/dovecot-sieve, use --with-dovecot=PATH to give path to compiled Dovecot sources
I tried using "./configure --with-dovecot=/usr/libexec/dovecot" but get the same problem.
You'll need to have Dovecot sources somewhere, and you must have run at least "configure" script for them. And preferrably you should also be running Dovecot installed from those sources, since if the binary package was built with different options the Sieve plugin might just crash..
There is already a request & patch to add that to the packages:
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=904
There are two paths:
a) Like the patch above, build both in one sweep b) Have the main dovecot tarball install files (headers, dovecot-config etc) for developing against dovecot.
The advantage of a) is that it can be done right away. The advantages of b) are longer-term: It decouples the builds of dovecot vs sieve, and thus allows to have a faster (or different) development cycle for sieve, e.g. a) implies rebuilding all dovecot packages for any change in the sieve sources.
And if another extension/plugin requires dovecot's development files and lives external to dovecot it will require the same handling making b) even more worth while.
There is also
c) Upstream (Timo) doesn't yet want to see dovecot-sieve distributed in packages because he considers it not ready yet and will merge the dovecot-sieve sources into dovecot proper when he things it's ready.
:)
I can see the advantages & disadvantages of both and my opinion is that option b) would be better for now. When Timo is happy that the cmuseive plug-in code is stable then it could be built automatically with dovecot.
I haven't been able to get the cmusieve plug-in working yet so I'm keen for either a) or b)! :)
Thanks go to Angel Marin
http://atrpms.net/name/dovecot-sieve/ http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=904
-- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net