Hi, please, could someone update the mailman package? It's outdated quite a long (at least since February 2009) and there is a new version 2.1.13 from December 2009.
Thank you!
Dan
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:38:37 +0200 Dan Vratil vratil@progdansoft.com wrote:
Hi, please, could someone update the mailman package? It's outdated quite a long (at least since February 2009) and there is a new version 2.1.13 from December 2009.
Thank you!
Dan
Flag it as out of date.
Ananda
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, Ananda Samaddar ananda@samaddar.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:38:37 +0200 Dan Vratil vratil@progdansoft.com wrote:
Hi, please, could someone update the mailman package? It's outdated quite a long (at least since February 2009) and there is a new version 2.1.13 from December 2009.
Thank you!
Dan
Flag it as out of date.
More importantly, try bumping the version and building and *running* the new version yourself. That way you can tell the maintainers things work great and they are relieved of some of the burden of testing a very unweildy to package package.
-Dan
On 22/07/10 08:21, Dan McGee wrote:
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, Ananda Samaddarananda@samaddar.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:38:37 +0200 Dan Vratilvratil@progdansoft.com wrote:
Hi, please, could someone update the mailman package? It's outdated quite a long (at least since February 2009) and there is a new version 2.1.13 from December 2009.
Thank you!
Dan
Flag it as out of date.
More importantly, try bumping the version and building and *running* the new version yourself. That way you can tell the maintainers things work great and they are relieved of some of the burden of testing a very unweildy to package package.
The main thing causing a delay for this was that I adjust the PKGBUILD on svn truck to not use /home/mailman. When I asked for testing (probably a year ago) I got no response...
I also want this updates so we can drop python24 from the repos.
Allan
On Thursday 22 July 2010 00:21:24 Dan McGee wrote:
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, Ananda Samaddar ananda@samaddar.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:38:37 +0200
Dan Vratil vratil@progdansoft.com wrote:
Hi, please, could someone update the mailman package? It's outdated quite a long (at least since February 2009) and there is a new version 2.1.13 from December 2009.
Thank you!
Dan
Flag it as out of date.
More importantly, try bumping the version and building and *running* the new version yourself. That way you can tell the maintainers things work great and they are relieved of some of the burden of testing a very unweildy to package package.
-Dan
Hi,
I tried the latest version of mailman (2.1.13) as you suggested. I used the PKGBUILD from SVN trunk, but I modified it, so that it does not require /home/mailman and mailman user and group to exist during build and I modified the mailman.install file so that useradd does not create /home/mailman. I'm not sure if this ML allows attachments, so the source tarball is on http://pub.progdan.cz/mailman-2.1.13-1.src.tar.gz if any dev were interested.
The mailman is working without problems, but making it work was not as simple as I thought at the beginning :) Our recent wiki page about mailman is absolutely useless. I would like to update it, put there a guide how to set up mailman (with postfix), but it's pointless until the package is updated.
Thanks Dan
On 24/07/10 02:55, Dan Vratil wrote:
I tried the latest version of mailman (2.1.13) as you suggested. I used the PKGBUILD from SVN trunk, but I modified it, so that it does not require /home/mailman and mailman user and group to exist during build and I modified the mailman.install file so that useradd does not create /home/mailman. I'm not sure if this ML allows attachments, so the source tarball is on http://pub.progdan.cz/mailman-2.1.13-1.src.tar.gz if any dev were interested.
The mailman is working without problems, but making it work was not as simple as I thought at the beginning :) Our recent wiki page about mailman is absolutely useless. I would like to update it, put there a guide how to set up mailman (with postfix), but it's pointless until the package is updated.
I have looked at the PKGBUILD and quickly built it. Everything looks good as far as I can tell. The install file still has the old syntax to be removed.
Can someone do the needed builds and upload this update to [testing]?
Allan
New version is in testing without a homedir for the mailman user. Please try to upgrade from last version in our extra repo. Tell us if I broke something.
-Andy
On 04/08/10 15:37, Andreas Radke wrote:
New version is in testing without a homedir for the mailman user. Please try to upgrade from last version in our extra repo. Tell us if I broke something.
Has anybody tested the version of mailman in [testing]? This will need to be moved before the python rebuild starts so any reports of successful updates would be good to have.
Allan
At Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:20:32 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 04/08/10 15:37, Andreas Radke wrote:
New version is in testing without a homedir for the mailman user. Please try to upgrade from last version in our extra repo. Tell us if I broke something.
Has anybody tested the version of mailman in [testing]? This will need to be moved before the python rebuild starts so any reports of successful updates would be good to have.
Hello, Allan,
It works for me, but it would be good if you swap /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py and /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py
/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py should point to /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py
Because of currently tar czf etc.tar.gz /etc does not backup mailman configuration.
On 13/08/10 21:30, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
At Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:20:32 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 04/08/10 15:37, Andreas Radke wrote:
New version is in testing without a homedir for the mailman user. Please try to upgrade from last version in our extra repo. Tell us if I broke something.
Has anybody tested the version of mailman in [testing]? This will need to be moved before the python rebuild starts so any reports of successful updates would be good to have.
Hello, Allan,
It works for me, but it would be good if you swap /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py and /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py
/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py should point to /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py
Because of currently tar czf etc.tar.gz /etc does not backup mailman configuration.
This is in the PKGBUILD: # Create a link so that the config file mm_cfg.py appears in config # directory /etc/mailman. We don't put mm_cfg.py in the config directory # because its executable code (python file) and the security policy wants # to keep executable code out of /etc and inside of a lib directory instead, # and because traditionally mm_cfg.py was in the Mailman subdirectory and # experienced mailman admins will expect to find it there. But having it # "appear" in the config directory is good practice and heading in the # right direction for FHS compliance.
So it is a deliberate choice to put it there. Fedora also does things that way. Debian and Gentoo do it the opposite.
So I am not sure what is the best here. Could you just use -h with your tar?
Allan
At Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:01:08 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
So it is a deliberate choice to put it there. Fedora also does things that way. Debian and Gentoo do it the opposite.
So I am not sure what is the best here. Could you just use -h with your tar?
It is not problem. But it is strange.
/etc/power /etc/ppp (ip up/down scripts) (probably)/etc/conf.d
and some other already contains executable configs.
What is the refered security policy?
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org