[Mailman-Users] Mailman archive messages(not rm, but install!)

John A. Martin jam at jamux.com
Sat Dec 9 07:43:21 CET 2006

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman archive messages(not rm, but install!)"
>>>>>  Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:28:19 -0600

    Brad> At 10:17 PM -0500 12/8/06, John A. Martin wrote:
    >> >> I've never claimed to be a Debian expert, and if they're
    >> >> mucking about with packages that include certain features by
    >> >> default in order to remove those features,
    >> What makes you, Brad, think that Debian removes pipermail when
    >> shown where it can be seen by anybody that it is included!
    >> What mucking about or other removal of features are you, or
    >> someone else, referring to?

Oops.  The first sentence of mine above was intended to end with a
question mark rather than an exclamation mark.  Maybe that would have
sounded better.

    Brad> I didn't say that Debian did.  Alan McConnell said that
    Brad> Mailman had been installed without pipermail:

Does that mean that the Debian Package does not carry pipermail?

    Brad> 	Meanwhile, I am adminning(sp?), through my ISP, a new
    Brad> 	but quite active E-list.  But their mailman install is
    Brad> 	incomplete; they haven't put in Pipermail (about which
    Brad> 	I know _nothing_).

    Brad> When asked what kind of whacked-out version of Mailman they
    Brad> were running that didn't include the built-in version of
    Brad> pipermail, he said:

    Brad> 	mm 2.1.5 .  But under Debian, so it has
    Brad> 	experienced/endured the Debian security upgrade
    Brad> 	procedures.

Does that mean that the Debian Package does not carry pipermail?

    Brad> To which my reply was:

    Brad> 	Okay, now that is one of the most bizarre things I've
    Brad> 	heard of in a very long time.  I cannot comprehend how
    Brad> 	they could possibly ship a version of Mailman 2.1.x
    Brad> 	that does not automatically include the bundled
    Brad> 	Pipermail component.

Between you and Alan you suggest something that is not true.  You are
an authority on this list (and elsewhere).  Beginners will conclude
From your statement that they should avoid using the Debian package.
Whether that is good advice or not it is not justified by the line of
evidence above.

Excuse me if I have a tendency based upon the above to suspect a
readiness to assume that Debian does bizarre things when there is no
evidence supporting that assumption.

    Brad> This lead to your mildly offensive reply, where you publicly
    Brad> said:

    Brad> 	See <http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/mailman>
    Brad> 	for a description of the Debian Mailman package that
    Brad> 	"integrates .... archiving ...".  Further down that
    Brad> 	page under the heading "Download mailman" click on one
    Brad> 	of the "list of files" buttons and see among other
    Brad> 	things:
    Brad> 	"usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/pipermail.py"

I do not know what there is offensive and no offense was intended.  I
generally try to be precise and succinct.  If one clicks one of the
"buttons" mentioned, one sees a URL something like
(for the i386 architecture) which I thought was uglier than mentioning
the button to click at the URL I gave.

    Brad> Yet nowhere on that page do I find any reference to
    Brad> pipermail.  If you had wanted to provide proof that Debian
    Brad> provides pipermail as part of the package, you should have
    Brad> been much less obtuse and offensive with your language, and
    Brad> much more explicit in the URL you provided.

If you had bothered to click on one of the "list of files" buttons you
would have (for the i386 archetecture) seen the pipermail.py file as
the 19th of 3438 files.

    >> The first recourse when having trouble with a Debian package
    >> should not be to the upstream but to the Debian maintainers,
    >> usually via a Debian Bug report.

    Brad> I don't think it's appropriate for us to be filing bug
    Brad> reports on these sorts of things with package maintainers of
    Brad> a given platform.  If the users of those packages wish to
    Brad> file bug reports, I would fully support that.  If the
    Brad> package maintainers wish to come back to us and file bug
    Brad> reports against our code in our bug tracking system, I
    Brad> welcome that.

I agree with what you say in the paragraph above and would have
thought that went without saying.  However when packaging issues arise
I think it would be good to suggest that users of various
distributions should consult whatever support the distribution offers.
For the Debian Mailman package, which does not have a related Debian
mailing list, the Debian user should usually file a Debian Bug report.

Presumably the one having trouble with a Debian package is a Debian
user not the "us" which I take to mean you and the Mailman community
as a whole.

I've said enough.  My enthusiasm is well restrained when it is
necessary to craft each sentence such that nothing can be made out of
it besides what was intended.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 154 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20061209/322cdae5/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list