Mark Sapiro wrote: > Andy Heath wrote: > >>If the mailman developer community adopts the FHS for >>mailman then that's a different story entirely and >>I would follow without complaint. > > > In fairness to John Dennis, he did raise these issues for discussion > last year on the Mailman-Developers list. See threads at > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2004-September/017270.html > and > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2004-October/017343.html
Thanks for pointing me at these posts Mark. I read all the content of those 2 posts by John and understand the arguments. I'm still of the view that unless the community runs with it then its not such a good step though I appreciate John's view is different. The issue it raises is maintenance. If FC does it differently then it means users are dependent on FC providing updated packages or working hard to manually do that mapping with updated code. Effectively it becomes an FC package not a general one but the developers are not part of FC. It also introduces another step at which bugs can occur. Is there guidance in the standard mailman distributions on how to build for FC starting with a tar.gz ? There needs to be some easy path between the two methods in my view. andy ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
