Re: [notmuch] Notmuch doesn't index new mails when mail location contains symlinks

diff --git a/af/f7b8afef8551ed3f554b4b3642de708fd55670 b/af/f7b8afef8551ed3f554b4b3642de708fd55670
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5267177
--- /dev/null
+++ b/af/f7b8afef8551ed3f554b4b3642de708fd55670
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C776431FBC;\r
+       Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:14:37 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id HzAzIain3+Z0; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:14:36 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884FE431FAE;\r
+       Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:14:36 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>\r
+To: Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>, Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>,\r
+       Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>\r
+In-Reply-To: <873a41dtbu.fsf@59A2.org>\r
+References: <87ws1hldmu.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de>\r
+       <87einpl50j.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <87ljhxjq5i.fsf@vertex.dottedmag>\r
+       <876391l2si.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <87vdh1472z.fsf@59A2.org>\r
+       <871vjlrv8b.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <873a41dtbu.fsf@59A2.org>\r
+Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:14:22 -0800\r
+Message-ID: <87ljhtq98x.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [notmuch] Notmuch doesn't index new mails when mail location\r
+ contains symlinks\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:14:37 -0000\r
+\r
+On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:39:01 +0100, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org> wrote:\r
+> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:34:12 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:\r
+> > I'm a little confused here. Notmuch only uses stat, so it should be\r
+> > looking at the target's mtime already. It actually takes special effort\r
+> > (via lstat) to get at the mtime of the link itself.\r
+> > \r
+> > So why aren't things just working?\r
+> \r
+> Because mtime doesn't change on the directory *above* the symlinks.\r
+> \r
+> I think.\r
+\r
+Then I'm still being really dense here. The non-propagation of mtime is\r
+the with actual directories. And the code is trying to do the right\r
+thing for that.\r
+\r
+So I still don't see what's being different with the symlinks. I should\r
+probably stop exposing ignorance here on the list, and just sit down\r
+with symlinks in a mail store and see what's happening.\r
+\r
+-Carl\r