1 Return-Path: <ciprian.craciun@gmail.com>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F9140DBC8
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:34:12 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
\r
13 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001]
\r
15 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
16 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
17 with ESMTP id tszA8ZpaItWp for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
18 Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:34:02 -0800 (PST)
\r
19 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com (mail-qy0-f174.google.com
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9588A40DDF7
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:34:02 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: by qyk12 with SMTP id 12so5246619qyk.5
\r
24 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:34:00 -0800 (PST)
\r
25 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
\r
26 h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:from:date
\r
27 :message-id:subject:to:content-type;
\r
28 bh=ywK12rsUIEPIZUIIrlR2/ANTV620N4N3Bxoy+JipsC0=;
\r
29 b=oXp1Ods/am6/rNjUnK+9c1Dk9+lLLkCeOObt+gtIOaIVDSOJbW7QwRuR4obOmzGF3d
\r
30 E4ZWV5JB7XkYXtHQJuO0DIaf5HXga/t0/MotJol8HTUk+cu7+nOpAAXL/LeSmvk9/phD
\r
31 d01rBeb9coAZmV5MSKfBgBNU9miEw83HZxBnU=
\r
32 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
\r
33 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
\r
34 b=Qh+oTz0zpa99ejy6j9fZD6TO8cU47YeCFWsNnnNxM8Gf4E1GSMtGFWuOi7VHRFSoUK
\r
35 Z9CU568AwjjI0GsRgmCPyXMr9OQhWrN0bUVzQS9ICckdBQCBv+jEq3WmNQRgQvNwbYpH
\r
36 WuJys6g7cfs7cLo99mUEjo93q6HoeYMsW2RgI=
\r
37 Received: by 10.229.232.211 with SMTP id jv19mr6341884qcb.28.1289914440374;
\r
38 Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:34:00 -0800 (PST)
\r
40 Received: by 10.229.189.17 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:33:30 -0800 (PST)
\r
41 From: "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun" <ciprian.craciun@gmail.com>
\r
42 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200
\r
43 Message-ID: <AANLkTikKiKC716H+ddF0Q5T0xc=vGHHOVroLRwzO3ujV@mail.gmail.com>
\r
44 Subject: `notmuch setup` replaces `~/.notmuch-config` instead of truncating it
\r
45 To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
\r
47 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
48 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
50 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
51 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
52 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
53 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
54 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
55 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
56 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
57 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
58 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
59 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:34:12 -0000
\r
63 First congratulations for the nice software! I hardly wait for a
\r
64 notmuch native (i.e. libnotmuch) and curses client (like `ner`) to
\r
65 become more stable, and thus I'll be able to ditch GMail. :) But until
\r
66 then a small glitch...
\r
68 While upgrading from notmuch 0.4 to 0.5, I've re-runned `notmuch
\r
69 config` as suggested in the release email.
\r
71 But in my particular case `~/.notmuch-config` is symlinked to an
\r
72 applications configuration directory which is versioned. Thus I've
\r
73 expected than when notmuch updates the config, it opens it for
\r
74 read-write, but with the truncation flag (which as a consequence would
\r
75 have modified the symlinked file). But instead it deleted the symlink,
\r
76 and replaced it with a newly created file (thus breaking my custom
\r
77 configuration backup system.)
\r
79 So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
\r
80 creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
\r
81 provide a patch) to just update the file in place?
\r