[Mailman-Users] Re: Mailman-Users Digest, Vol 7, Issue 33

[Richard Barrett]

At 06:41 14/04/2003, Jonathan Bentley wrote:
>Hi,
>
>   I'm rapidly going insane trying to get mailman working.  Everytime I type
>"make install" I get:
>
>
>   for f in ./*.txt; \
>do \
>     /usr/local/bin/install -c -m 644 $f /sw/mailman/2.1.1/tests/msgs; \
>         done
>/usr/local/bin/python -c 'from compileall import *;
>compile_dir("/sw/mailman/2.1.1/Mailman")'
>   File "<string>", line 1
>     from
>        ^
>SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>*** Error code 1
>make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `doinstall'

The make seems to be failing where it is trying to get Python to 
precompile  Mailman's Python modules, i.e. generate bytecode and save it in 
.pyc files.

It is not a failure I have come across but you could try executing the 
failing command from the command line, Based on your error report:

     /usr/local/bin/python -c 'from compileall import *; 
compile_dir("/sw/mailman/2.1.1/Mailman")'

If that fails, I'm inclined to think you have something awry with you 
Python installation but no idea of what.

You do not say which version of python you have installed on the machine 
and running as /usr/local/bin/python, which may (or may not) be 
significant. Is this Python in /usr/local/bin/python 2.1.3 or 2.2.1 per the 
Mailman INSTALL document (or 2.2.2  which is also OK)?

The failure occurred on the last step in the installation and you could try 
continuing even though the Mailman's Python modules have not been precompiled.


>I'm using Solaris 8 and have tried various combinations of cc and gcc, all of
>which produce the same problem.  I've installed the latest python without any
>problems, but it still falls over when it makes the call to python -c.
>
>I'm just about ready to give up and go back to Majordomo, but I thought 
>I'd try
>commenting out this call to python in the Makefile.  Before I do though, 
>could
>someone please tell me what this line actually does?  Will I have a dodgy
>mailman install if I comment it out?
>
>   Thanks for your help,
>
>Jon Bentley.
>