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
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 wel
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 01:36, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > John makes some really valid points here. While it is a bit more of a
> > change, FHS compatibility does make sense. Is this something that we
> > can consider for future 2.1.x releases?
>
>
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John makes some really valid points here. While it is a bit more of a
> change, FHS compatibility does make sense. Is this something that we
> can consider for future 2.1.x releases?
Upgradability without problems is very important for patch-le
John makes some really valid points here. While it is a bit more of a change, FHS compatibility
does make sense. Is this something that we can consider for future 2.1.x releases?
Bob
John Dennis wrote:
Overview:
-
Earlier I wrote about our (Red Hat's) desire to make mailman be FHS
compl
Overview:
-
Earlier I wrote about our (Red Hat's) desire to make mailman be FHS
compliant, in part to allow mailman to fall under the protection of
SELinux security policy which is file and directory based and as a
consequence much easier to author when packages install into canonical
loca
