* Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-30 09:29]: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:22:43 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: > > * Russell L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-30 06:22]: > > > (variables not applicable to the particular > > > installation may be commented out, using #) > > > > you want manuals which depend on the current installation? > > what about systems which more than one mutt binary? > > my point: this won't work. > > I think that Mutt should be fixed concerning this point. > For instance, on one of my accounts, the manual says: > 6.3.36. dotlock_program > Contains the path of the mutt_dotlock (8) binary to be used by mutt. > > But as dotlocking is disabled, this variable doesn't exist!
bad idea. what if the manual does not describe this variable and the user hits on a mutt binary which includes it? a better way is that of vim which includes the info that the option/variable is only available when some code is in binary as indicated by "+feature" in the outut of the ":version" command. something similar for mutt would be most welcome. Sven
