[Mailman-Users] packages vs sources (was: Cron command?)

[Mark Sapiro]

On 04/21/2015 10:37 AM, Danil Smirnov wrote:
> 
> Many people rely on their distribution packagers - is this bad?
> 
> I always prefer to use yum/apt-get instead of compiling software from source.
> The reasons are obvious (all they are in any package system mission statement).
> 
> Mailman is one of the few exception of this rule on my servers because of
> importance of its new versions and rare packages updates. :(
> (It's shame that they include 2.1.15 in the new Centos7 distribution!)


You have answered your own question.


> But if we 'use supplied tools' and lost distribution integration - like
> removing cron entries automatically when 'service mailman stop' -
> does this make sense at all?


The OP (and I) were only referring to using the 'crontab' command to
install/edit a crontab rather than directly copying/editing files.

In the case of a package which installs/removes Mailman's crontab as
part of it's init.d script, this translates to "if you want to edit
Mailman's crontab, edit the source file, not the /etc/cron.d/mailman
file. And, in this case, it is incumbent on the packager to make this
clear in the package documentation.

But this raises the question, if you are installing Mailman from source,
why do you still have artifacts from the distro's package still in your
installation.

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