mark at msapiro.net
Thu Jan 21 16:10:04 CET 2010
Young, Darren wrote:
>Yea, ArchRunner is running:
>[root at bushlms01 archive]# ps -eaf | grep -i arch
>mailman 2090 2077 0 Jan20 ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/python
>/usr/local/mailman/bin/qrunner --runner=ArchRunner:0:1 -s
>/usr/local/mailman/qfiles/archive is empty:
>[root at bushlms01 archive]# pwd
>[root at bushlms01 archive]# ls -l
What is the timestamp if you do "ls -ld" here?
>I'll put in to have Mailman brought up to 2.1.x during a maintenance
>window. 2.1.13 appears to be the latest in the 2.1.x series, would that
>be the one to go with now?
Yes. 2.1.13 is the version to go with. It requires at least Python
2.4.x. There are some potential issues. If your current Mailman
version is 2.1.5 (or later), the migration is no problem at all, but
there is a potential compatibility issue with some Python 2.4.x
versions and possibly Python 2.5, but not 2.5.x. See the March 2009
update in the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/pYA9>. If your current
Mailman is older than 2.1.5, see the UPGRADING document in the 2.1.13
tarball or at
>Any other thoughts? Python version issues with archiving?
I don't think any of this has anything to do with your archiving
problem. To summarize,
- for the list Archiving Options -> archive is set to Yes (have you
- a post or posts were sent to the list and delivered to the list
members with archive set to Yes
- ArchRunner is running
- there's nothing in qfiles/archive
- there are no relevant errors in logs/error
I can't understand how all of the above can be true.
Are there other lists in this installation with archives? If so, does
archiving work for them?
One other thought. Is it possible that your test posts contain an
X-No-Archive: header or an "X-Archive: No" header?
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the Mailman-Users