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
