Your message dated Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:10:04 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#983529: Backport mailman3 for buster
has caused the Debian Bug report #983529,
regarding Backport mailman3 for buster
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
983529: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=983529
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: mailman3
Version: 3.2.1-1
What do you think about providing a backport of mailman3 3.3.3-1 for Buster?
I'm about to setup mailman for a German organization that would like to have
localized messages. But those are only available in 3.3.3.
This would of course only make sense together with backports for hyperkitty and
posterious.
Python-Django does have backports for buster.
Would you be OK if I'd upload backports?
Do you think it is feasible?
Thank you! Thomas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Thomas,
Am 28.02.21 um 12:10 schrieb Jonas Meurer:
Am 25.02.21 um 18:57 schrieb Thomas Koch:
What do you think about providing a backport of mailman3 3.3.3-1 for
Buster?
I'm about to setup mailman for a German organization that would like
to have localized messages. But those are only available in 3.3.3.
This would of course only make sense together with backports for
hyperkitty and posterious.
I'm not sure whether I consider the effort of updating the whole
mailman3 stack in buster-backports worthwhile. Bullseye is around the
cornder. Why not install a fresh bullseye box instead and setup mailman3
there?
I didn't check yet, but from my memories we'd have to backport quite
some dependencies as well.
I'll close the bugreport for the reason I explained above.
Kind regards
jonas
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
