On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 21:11 -0400, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> On 9/15/20 8:18 PM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
> > A small group, including myself, are planning to present a proposal. We
> > are in the early stage of defining what that will involve, but we are
> > all committed. I've
On 9/15/20 8:18 PM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
A small group, including myself, are planning to present a proposal. We
are in the early stage of defining what that will involve, but we are
all committed. I've also, as you've probably seen on lp, been focused
on pushing my py3
On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 16:51 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 9/15/20 12:41 PM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
> > I demanded nothing. I was told by Mark that I would need to apply for
> > all those perks (sans the Cabal seat) when all I offered to do was
> >
On 9/15/20 8:59 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
>
> I went to the last link at the bottom of this list's posts and clicked
> on the (first) item with the same Subject as this email. I paged down
> into that long page to find the single post that I wanted to link to.
> After a while I
On 9/15/20 12:41 PM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
>
> I demanded nothing. I was told by Mark that I would need to apply for
> all those perks (sans the Cabal seat) when all I offered to do was
> support/test/debug/evaluate/approve new features in launchpad.
I told you to make a
On 9/15/20 12:28 PM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
> On 9/15/2020 3:06 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>>
>> If you are in the directory that you unpacked the Mailman 2.1.34 tarball
>> into, do
>>
>> patch -p1 < /path/to/mailman-FHS.patch
>>
>>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I guess there is still something wrong:
>
> # patch
On 9/15/20 4:39 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
If only this were a meeting conducted under Robert's Rules, the Chair
would have invoked cloture, or at least referred this issue back to
committee. All interested parties have made their arguments,
positions have hardened, and debate has become
If only this were a meeting conducted under Robert's Rules, the Chair
would have invoked cloture, or at least referred this issue back to
committee. All interested parties have made their arguments,
positions have hardened, and debate has become unrevealing.
Insofar as anything ever dies on
On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 03:51 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes:
>
> > I personally think that you, Stephen, are digging high and low to find
> > any reason for Mailman2 to not continue forward under the Mailman
> > umbrella.
>
> Digging?? Wake up, Jim!
On 9/15/2020 3:06 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> If you are in the directory that you unpacked the Mailman 2.1.34 tarball
> into, do
>
> patch -p1 < /path/to/mailman-FHS.patch
>
>
Hi Mark,
I guess there is still something wrong:
# patch -p1 <../mailman-FHS.patch
patching file bin/check_perms
Hunk #1
On 9/15/2020 2:06 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 9/15/20 10:44 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
I guess I don't know how to use patch. Better documentation would be
helpful.
man patch?
In all fairness, as I recall "-p" isn't explained all that well.
The diff file has paths to file(s) to patch,
On 9/15/20 10:44 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>
> I guess I don't know how to use patch. Better documentation would be
> helpful.
man patch?
> # patch --verbose -i ../mailman-FHS.patch
>
> Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...
> can't find file to patch at input line 5
> Perhaps you should
Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes:
> I personally think that you, Stephen, are digging high and low to find
> any reason for Mailman2 to not continue forward under the Mailman
> umbrella.
Digging?? Wake up, Jim! It's *official policy* that Mailman 2 will
not receive new features under
On 9/15/2020 1:13 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 9/15/20 9:02 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>> Thanks again. I thought if I was already at 2.1.15 the patch was not
>> necessary. However, reading the article it is not clear to me when/where
>> to run that patch. Does it get run after the install or before
On 9/15/20 9:02 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>
> Thanks again. I thought if I was already at 2.1.15 the patch was not
> necessary. However, reading the article it is not clear to me when/where
> to run that patch. Does it get run after the install or before running
> ./config?
It needs to be
On 9/15/20 11:59 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
Ok, that makes sense. I wonder if we can get him to license/allow a copy
for use by Python.org.
Only if they agree to use it on a server on my network with no root
access allowed. Since Affinity and Empathy are not python apps, I
On 9/15/2020 10:26 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 9/15/20 6:56 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply. Your article is not much help as I am already at
>> 2.1.15 so the paths are already correct. I turned off SELinux to see if
>> that helps but there is another issue after the reboot. I'll
On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 08:45 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 9/15/20 4:40 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
> > I'd use the new MM3 archive of this list to link to your posts, but
> > interacting with it is an abysmal time waste. At a minimum someone
> > should put Brian's HK replacement
On 9/15/20 4:40 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote:
>
> I'd use the new MM3 archive of this list to link to your posts, but
> interacting with it is an abysmal time waste. At a minimum someone
> should put Brian's HK replacement on python.org?
Brian's Affinity and Empathy are his
On 9/15/20 6:56 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply. Your article is not much help as I am already at
> 2.1.15 so the paths are already correct. I turned off SELinux to see if
> that helps but there is another issue after the reboot. I'll let you
> know when I get the machine back
On 9/14/2020 9:11 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 9/14/20 9:59 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>> On 8/29/2020 2:11 PM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>>> Since Centos 7 is way behind on mailman rpm (2.1.15 is the only
>>> available rpm) and mailman is currently at 2.1.34 I need to do a manual
>>> update. While I know
On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 16:10 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes:
>
> > See Stephens previous comments about how there was no way he could
> > or would work with anyone working on mm2 because it was against his
> > objectives,
>
> Correction: I will not
Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes:
> See Stephens previous comments about how there was no way he could
> or would work with anyone working on mm2 because it was against his
> objectives,
Correction: I will not work with someone who repeatedly misrepresents my
positions in the way that
Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users writes:
> As long as cPanel bundles MM2, I need from time to time some
> support from the real experts. And even if MM2 would not be
> improved at all in the future, I hope that this list will stay
> alive.
The existence of this list, and of support for
Steven Jones writes:
> I dont know what planet this user lives on,
Please, don't. This conversation is painful enough on all sides.
> > Speaking as _a_ user, my requirements are simple:
> > 1. MM2 must continue to work,
> > 2. support must continue to be provided."
Read literally,
25 matches
Mail list logo
