> There are too many exim-specific options, and it's just easy to
> see the explanation while editing the Makefile.
I agree - as Makefile's go exim has a excellent makefile. Perhaps it
would be clearer if I showed you what I currently use on my 'setup
a machine without having to do anything' script...
sed -e 's,COMPRESS_COMMAND=/opt/gnu/bin/gzip,COMPRESS_COMMAND=/usr/bin/gzip,' \
-e 's,EXICYCLOG_MAX=10,EXICYCLOG_MAX=30,' \
-e 's,# EXIM_UID=,EXIM_UID=25,' \
-e 's,# EXIM_GID=$,EXIM_GID=25,' \
-e 's,EXIM_MONITOR=eximon.bin,# EXIM_MONITOR=eximon.bin,' \
-e 's,# LOG_FILE_PATH=/var/log/exim_%slog,LOG_FILE_PATH=/var/log/exim/%slog,' \
-e 's,# SPOOL_DIRECTORY=/var/spool/exim,SPOOL_DIRECTORY=/var/spool/exim,' \
src/EDITME > Local/Makefile
Now that is icky icky icky, and all it takes is for Philip to change
the format of the Makefile ever so subtly and it will break. A
configure script which handled these (and other) options would be...
nice.
> > Whilst this may well end up being an academic discussion, you appear
> > to have biased your opinion of how/what the output from --help
> > can/should be.
>
> I just see what the usual output of --help is.
It can be anything, it is just built into the script, or even you could
have
./configure --help
./configure --help-lots
> > Odd you should say that, I always set up the non interactive version
> > myself.
>
> I often want to change something.
Me too, I do it on the command line, and non interactively.
> Ok, enough holy wars on this subject for me... Vi against Emacs,
> anyone?
What's the point. It is obvious which is best :-)
>
> Vadik.
Julian
Unix Admin, Internet Vision
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
