[Mailman-Users] packages vs sources

[Mark Sapiro]

On 04/21/2015 01:38 PM, Danil Smirnov wrote:
> 
> Using 'service' scripts to control ALL server's services (Mailman IS a
> service irrespective of its version, right?) isn't absurd or
> non-sense. I think one should respect distribution structure and keep
> things work as distribution creator's intended.


Mailman is not a service on your server if you don't install it either
from source or a package. Your /etc/init.d/mailmnan script was installed
by your Mailman package. It wasn't there before you installed the package.

The source distribution also includes an init.d script at
scripts/mailman and instructions for installing it are in comments at
its beginning and in the installation manual at
<http://www.list.org/mailman-install/node42.html>, so you can see, we
definitely support 'service' scripts.


> Considering this 'packagers related' stuff as not important and
> insisting on 'native' way to use cron has less sense for me than the
> opposite. Why standard control of Mailman service in very popular
> distribution family has no reflection in Mailman documentation you
> mentioned and sometimes considers like 'artefacts'?


See the above. The only thing I'm calling 'packagers related' is the
specific content of the init.d script, not the concept.


> May be this attitude has some influence on that fact that there is so
> old version of Mailman in last Centos release?...


You would have to as Red Hat about that? I don't see what "attitude" you
are talking about here that would affect the version that Red Hat and
hence CentOS chooses to include in a particular distro.

Do we have a communication disconnect of some kind here?

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