On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 11:34, Dale Newfield wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, John Dennis wrote: > > > "mailmanctl stop;config.status;make install;mailmanctl start" > > Just remembered that I missed "check_perms -f" in there. Which of course > brings up the point that presumably this script would need lots of > (configuration dependent) changes made to it as well. Did you catch that > one?
I did take that into consideration and I don't believe I introduced any problems. The fundamental logic of the script was unaltered, the primary change was the addition of new directories to scan to the existing directory list. This means the function checkwalk, which is where all the action happens is now invoked on a few more directories. If the old directory structure is being used then checkwalk has the potential to descend into a directory more than once, however there was already logic in checkwalk to prevent redundant scanning. There are a couple of special directories which are not processed by the generic checkwalk and instead are handled by custom functions, however these were unaffected. However I must caution that my testing of "check_perm -f" was limited since there were no problems to fix. I suppose I could have manually altered files and tried "check_perm -f" but I'll confess I didn't go to that level of testing nor did I test on a non FHS installation. Bottom line: I don't think there are problems but testing is incomplete. -- John Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
