Barry S. Finkel wrote:

There has been some discussion (that I will not quote) about various linux Mailman packages. I built a 2.1.12 package for Ubuntu based on the SourceForge source and the Debian/Ubuntu 2.1.9 package. At that time there were too many Debian patches that were undocumented. Last week I decided to look at the Ubuntu 2.1.12 package for the "jaunty" release, and I found fewer patches. The patch log file mentioned that all of the patches had been reviewed by Mark Sapiro, so I assume that the remaining patches are needed to fix bugs. I assume that Mark has these remaining patches and will include them in the next release of Mailman. I have not yet finished reviewing the patches, but the ones I have reviewed look to me like fixes for bugs.

Yes, I did look at the 2.1.11 Debian patch set and send some comments back to Debian.

I have just looked briefly at the 2.1.12 patch set at <http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/mailman/1:2.1.12-1>. (Note that these URLs are unstable - if this one doesn't work, go to <http://patch-tracking.debian.net/index/m> and find the current link in the mailman entry.)

A number of these patches address Debian specific packaging issues and are not relevant in a generic install from source.

A very few address possible bugs that are obscure and which I didn't have time to investigate thoroughly before the 2.1.12 release.

At least 1 patch is wrong. <http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/mailman/1:2.1.12-1/64_cor...> is intended to fix the bug <http://bugs.debian.org/249212>. The bug report is valid, but the patch doesn't fix it. The patch moves the wrong thing in the templates.

Some of these patches (including a corrected 64_correct_html_nesting.patch) have already been comitted on the 2.2 branch. Others may be put in 2.2 prior to release, but many of them simply aren't relevant to the source distribution.

-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan