At 10:17 PM -0500 12/8/06, John A. Martin wrote: > >> I've never claimed to be a Debian expert, and if they're > >> mucking about with packages that include certain features by > >> default in order to remove those features, > > What makes you, Brad, think that Debian removes pipermail when shown > where it can be seen by anybody that it is included! What mucking > about or other removal of features are you, or someone else, referring > to?
I didn't say that Debian did. Alan McConnell said that Mailman had been installed without pipermail: Meanwhile, I am adminning(sp?), through my ISP, a new but quite active E-list. But their mailman install is incomplete; they haven't put in Pipermail (about which I know _nothing_). When asked what kind of whacked-out version of Mailman they were running that didn't include the built-in version of pipermail, he said: mm 2.1.5 . But under Debian, so it has experienced/endured the Debian security upgrade procedures. To which my reply was: Okay, now that is one of the most bizarre things I've heard of in a very long time. I cannot comprehend how they could possibly ship a version of Mailman 2.1.x that does not automatically include the bundled Pipermail component. This lead to your mildly offensive reply, where you publicly said: See <http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/mailman> for a description of the Debian Mailman package that "integrates .... archiving ...". Further down that page under the heading "Download mailman" click on one of the "list of files" buttons and see among other things: "usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/pipermail.py" Yet nowhere on that page do I find any reference to pipermail. If you had wanted to provide proof that Debian provides pipermail as part of the package, you should have been much less obtuse and offensive with your language, and much more explicit in the URL you provided. Based on what I saw on that page, and the rude behaviour I was seeing from you, I concluded that Debian had actually done precisely what I had previously commented on to Alan, and led to my response: I've never claimed to be a Debian expert, and if they're mucking about with packages that include certain features by default in order to remove those features, then there's not much I can do to help the poor souls that are stuck with that kind of stuff. However, no amount of your expecting me to do "fact-checking" with the way that Debian is building their highly modified packaged versions of our software is going to change that. It's physically impossible to keep up with how every single vendor is choosing to ship our software. Note that I do not, at any time, make an outright claim that Debian was stripping pipermail from the Mailman package that they were providing -- I said "... if they're mucking about with packages that include certain features by default to remove those features...". Obviously the subtle difference in this statement was completely lost on you. > The first recourse when having trouble with a Debian package should > not be to the upstream but to the Debian maintainers, usually via a > Debian Bug report. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be filing bug reports on these sorts of things with package maintainers of a given platform. If the users of those packages wish to file bug reports, I would fully support that. If the package maintainers wish to come back to us and file bug reports against our code in our bug tracking system, I welcome that. But no one here has the time to go tracking down every single bloody bizarre behaviour that may or may not be a result of something strange that a package maintainer decided to do, and then to track them down and sit on them until they fix their "bug". That is, unless you're volunteering to do that, of course. If so, then please just go ahead and do so, and quit making worse a situation that is already pretty bad to begin with. > Paul> I don't know what John is experiencing, > > I am experiencing dismay at the innuendo followed by disinformation > with respect to the Debian Mailman package. If you want clarity in a discussion, it would really help if you would actually provide some measure of clarity in your own postings. If I've made a mistake, and that fact is pointed out to me in a reasonably neutral and constructive way, I generally accept and even welcome the correction and genuinely work towards a good resolution to the problem. However, if your first reaction is obtuse and offensive bluster with baseball bats, then you damn well better be prepared for the kind of reaction you're going to receive. > Paul> but I'm using Mailman installed from Debian Stable, and have > Paul> been for a couple of years, and it's always had pipermail. > > Yes. AFICT the absence of pipermail from the Debian Mailman is a > fantasy held only by Brad Knowles as the explanation for difficulties > experienced by a user who remarked as follows: If there is anyone around here that is in any kind of fantasy state, that would be whatever psycho ward you live in, where you think you're going to win friends and impress people by baffling them with bullshit since you obviously are not capable of dazzling anyone with brilliance. -- Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trend Micro has announced that they will cancel the stop.mail-abuse.org mail forwarding service as of 15 November 2006. If you have an old e-mail account for me at this domain, please make sure you correct that with the current address. ------------------------------------------------------ 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