On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:14:22 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> Then I'm still being really dense here. The non-propagation of mtime is
> the with actual directories. And the code is trying to do the right
> thing for that.
The stat() is correct, it's the check for the d_type field coming out of
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:34:12 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> I'm a little confused here. Notmuch only uses stat, so it should be
> looking at the target's mtime already. It actually takes special effort
> (via lstat) to get at the mtime of the link itself.
>
> So why aren't things just working?
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:39:01 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:34:12 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > I'm a little confused here. Notmuch only uses stat, so it should be
> > looking at the target's mtime already. It actually takes special effort
> > (via lstat) to get at the mtime of
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:03:00 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> > But still no luck. Finally, I deleted the symlinks and created them
> > anew, and then it indexed the 12 new mails that arrived in the
> > meantime.
OK. So that's definitely a bug we need to fix.
> The real solution is for notmuch to
Twas brillig at 16:03:00 23.11.2009 UTC+01 when jed at 59A2.org did gyre and
gimble:
JB> The real solution is for notmuch to check mtime of whatever the
JB> symlink's target.
It does exactly this AFACT, stat() everywhere, not lstat().
--
http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/
-- next
Twas brillig at 16:01:41 23.11.2009 UTC+01 when tassilo at member.fsf.org did
gyre and gimble:
>>> Probably mail does not get indexed due to mtime checks. Please try
>>> whether touch'ing directory with mailboxes makes it work.
>> No, it seems that doesn't help either.
TH> Ah, I'm stupid!
Twas brillig at 14:55:40 23.11.2009 UTC+01 when tassilo at member.fsf.org did
gyre and gimble:
TH> Whenever I delete those symlinks and created them anew, the new
TH> mails get indexed with the next "notmuch new". Of course, I could
TH> create a script that does exactly that, but there
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:01:41 +0100, Tassilo Horn
wrote:
> Tassilo Horn writes:
> I don't have to touch the symlinks or the directories inside the
> locations the symlinks point to, but instead I have to touch the
> top-level directory where the symlinks are contained in.
Ah, it's slightly
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:43:41 +0100, Tassilo Horn
wrote:
> First, I only touched the two symlinks.
Unfortunately, this actually touched the file pointed to by the symlink,
if you stat the symlink you will see that mtime did not change.
> This didn't help. Then I used
> "find . -type d | xargs
Tassilo Horn writes:
Hi Mikhail,
>> TH> Whenever I delete those symlinks and created them anew, the new
>> TH> mails get indexed with the next "notmuch new". Of course, I could
>> TH> create a script that does exactly that, but there should be a
>> TH> better way, right?
>>
>> Probably
Mikhail Gusarov writes:
Hi Mikhail,
> TH> Whenever I delete those symlinks and created them anew, the new
> TH> mails get indexed with the next "notmuch new". Of course, I could
> TH> create a script that does exactly that, but there should be a
> TH> better way, right?
>
> Probably mail
Tassilo Horn writes:
Hi all,
I've investigated a bit further.
> [notmuch doesn't index new mails although all directories and files
> are readable and writable.]
In my config, I have:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
[database]
path=/home/horn/Mail/Dovecot
Hi all,
after setting up notmuch, initially indexing all my mail, and removing
the inbox and unread tags thereafter, now I recognize that notmuch
doesn't index new mail.
--8<---cut here---start->8---
% notmuch new --verbose
No new mail---and that's not much.
13 matches
Mail list logo
