[Mailman-Users] list_members?

[Ron Jarrell]

At 11:11 AM 9/6/00 -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
>> > Here's what I got:
>> > 
>> > [root at list bin]# ./list_lists 
>> > 3 matching mailing lists found:
>> >     Eng223 - British Literature II
>> >     Eng315 - The World Novel
>> >       Greg - [no description available]
>> > [root at list bin]# ./list_members Eng223
>> > No such list "Eng223"
>> > 
>> > [root at list bin]# 
>> > 
>> > Huh?  Does it do that because there are no members for the 
>> > list, or what?
>>  
>> No, it's a user interface issue.  list_lists is displaying 
>> the published name of the list;
>> Eng223's internal list name is eng223; Eng223 is just the 
>> "pretty" name, which can be
>> set on the admin page.
>> 
>> list_members, however, expects the internal name of the list. 
>>  There is no "Eng223" directory
>> with a marshalled database.  However, if you'd done a 
>> list_members eng223, you'd either get
>> a list of subscribers, or just a blank line showing there were none.
>
>Would it be logical to add a switch to list_lists that would give some
>useful information, rather than the pretty information that it gives now?
>Or would it be better to hack list_members so that it's smart enough to
>understand the list names that list_lists spits out?  Later,

Ok, I built a patch for list_members to accept u/l case listnames (all of 2 lines.
It'd have been 1 line, but we weren't using the string library yet!), and filed
a bug report against it.  Dunno if Barry will pick it up for 2.0 final (or beta 6,
if he thinks we need one.)  It's pretty minor, and I think we're in the 
"it better be bleeding" stage of the betas, since the only reason 2.0 isn't
out yet is python 2.0 is sucking up all his time.

If you want it, it's 101434 on sourceforge.  The bug report is 113742.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20000906/330dd577/attachment.html