[sylpheed:30473] Re: When use "Update summary"/"Strict checking of... summary caches" ?

[Don Koch]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:18:50 +0100
Daniel Déchelotte wrote:

> Don Koch a écrit :
> 
> > I use a script that runs nmh's "folder -pack" and then deletes
> > the .sylpheed_cache file.  Upon re-entry to that folder (you don't
> > need to quit sylpheed), it will recreate the file, but several files
> > are marked as unread; so, I usually run my script, change to another
> > folder, change back and mark all as read.
> 
> Did you set "enable strick checking of the integrity of summary caches"?

No, but I did set "Enable strict checking of the integrity of summary caches". :)

> > The script is entered as an action (syl-pack %f).
> > 
> > #!/bin/bash
> > 
> > # change the file name to a directory name
> > folder=`echo $1 | sed "s,/[0-9]*$,,"`
> 
> May I recommend:
> folder=$(dirname "$1")

Sure.

> > # now just the folder name
> > f1=`echo $folder | sed "s,^.*/Mail/,,"`
> 
> and:
> f1=${folder/*Mail\/}
> ;-)

OK.

> > # pack it
> > folder +${f1} -pack
> > rm $folder/.sylpheed_cache
> 
> It looks like removing .sylpheed_cache prompts sylpheed to update its
> summary, without having to go to throw "View"->"Update summary".
> I am wondering, maybe .sylpheed_mark should be deleted as well?

Assuming that .sylpheed_mark is the file used to determine various markup
(e.g., replied-to, forwarded, etc.), then yes, only because the marks are
now irrelevant.  This is why I would also like to see a built in folder
packing that would also adjust the marks.  (Fortunately, I usually don't
care about them.)

> Thanks !
> -- Daniel
> 

-d