Hm, is there anything else than VHCS2 out there, doing a better job?taskara wrote:yes, to a degree - it does not really do everything I want, but it IS promising.Master One wrote:taskara, what happened? Did you loose interest in VHCS2?
I don't really understand. With courier4 the config files are as well in /etc/courier-imap, and /etc/courier only has the authlib dir (with the files authdaemonrc, authdaemonrc.dist, authmysqlrc, authmysqlrc.dist), but nothing else. So all of your modifications for /etc/courier-imap, instead of /etc/courier, are still valid. I just don't know about the two files "authdaemonrc" and "authmodulelist", which show up in vhcs-2.4/configs/courier/Makefile for /etc/courier-imap as well (whereas I would put them into /etc/courier/authlib). Except the modules line in authdaemonrc, there are not any other changes, so those two files probably do not matter at all.taskara wrote:this is part of the deal.. the original tarball is not designed for gentoo, but for debian - and as such a lot of the components don't point to the right places.Master One wrote:I am not quite sure about the nessary changes to be applied to the original package concerning the use of courier-imap V4. Is it enough to change the CMD_AUTHD line in vhcs2.conf, or are there changes necessary in vhcs-2.4/configs/courier/Makefile necessary as well??? As it looks like, "courier-imap" is the valid dir in most cases, except when it is about authentication, which means "courier/authlib" then. But it's only about two files (authdaemonrc & authmodulelist), whereas authdaemonrc does not show any major differences, and authmodulelist even seems to be not needed.
Originally I got vhcs working by using a plethora of symlinks - you should be able to do this too. it should be much easier now with courier v4 because it is now pointing parts back to /etc/courier, whereas for courier3 I had to change every single make file in the program to point it ot another location.. very tedious!
If this is alright, I would just apply all the location changes by using a patchfile on the original tarball, I think this is less hassle, than to apply all those symlinks. On the other hand, using the full set of symlinks would make it easier to upgrade in the future, as long as there is no ebuild available for it.
It's a pitty, that you couldn't find the time to proceed, you surely were already close to the best possible implementation. I still wonder if anybody got it fully working by now in Gentoo.taskara wrote:Go for it! I was hoping someone else would be able to contribute some changes.. I didn't get it all working. I think we should use the original tarball and use symlinks or what not to get it working under gentoo.. else it's a lot of work for each subsequent version release..Master One wrote:I'd appreciate clearification for that matters, as I'd like to use the original package and apply a patch for Gentooification.




