On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:34:47PM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 10:43:54PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> > MM> Just for the record, Sourceforge just hit the 16,000 lists
> > MM> limit today and broke because ext2fs doesn't support more than
> > MM> 32,000 links to a directory (archives/private had 32,000
> > MM> archive dirs) I'm told freebsd's UFS has similar problems.
> >
> > Wow, neat! Not for you, but neat. :)
>
> BTW, I ended up removing all the HTML archive directories since I've turned
> off HTML archiving anyway.
> That gives us a little while (more than six months if we are lucky :-D)
> before we hit the 32,000 lists mark.
>
> I'm thinking about an optional modification to mailman which only affects
> list creation that creates the mailman/foo/l/li/listname dirs, and then
> symlinks all this to mailman/foo/listname
> Yeah, symlinks aren't great, but the advantage is that it requires no other
> changes to the mailman code
I haven't yet had the time to work on this, but I wanted to know
what your preference was between a hack that optionally creates
mailman/foo/l/li/listname dirs at the time the list is created, and then
sets symlinks back to where the rest of the mailman code expects to see the
files and dirs, or a bigger change to teach all of mailman about the new
file and dir location (no more symlinks)
Of course, if we go with the no symlink route, making the deep subdir config
optional would be a bit more work.
What's your take on this, and which route would you prefer?
Marc
--
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key