[Mailman-Users] Config_list doesn't copy the "Public HTML Pages"

[stephen at xemacs.org]

Brad Knowles writes:
 > At 2:30 PM +0900 2006-09-06, <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
 > 
 > The templates are stored in the filesystem, in a variety of different 
 > places depending on [all kinds o' things].
 > 
 > How you would pick and choose which specific templates are to be 
 > considered as part of the configuration for a given list would be a 
 > complex subject.  Do you copy the site-wide versions or not?  If you 
 > do copy them, do you install them in the list-specific locations on 
 > the other end, or do you install them in the appropriate site-wide 
 > location?  And what if there are conflicts?
 > 
 > This starts to get real messy, real quick.

Yep.  That's why I mentioned "work on it" and "later".  However, I
have an itch.  A few thoughts in case anybody would like to comment
before I start scratching.

0. For most admins, Mailman is a small fraction of their job, and a
problem is just knowing where stuff is.  I don't even know which files
the lists configs are in unless I think about it; I just use
bin/with_list.  A tool should be optionally able to tell you where to
find stuff related to a list (sorta like pkg-config does), as well as
operating on it.

1. There should be a distinction between "factory defaults" and "site
wide" (a la Defaults and mm_cfg).  If there's a site-wide config !=
factory default, the tool should notify the user, and offer to copy it
(only to a different installation).  The admin should be given the
choice of a list-specific copy or a site-wide copy.

2. If there are conflicts, the admin gets a menu.  I really don't
think this need be that hard, there should be a short list of
available sources, and a short list (usually only one, ie, for stuff
stored in the config pickle) of targets.  In most cases the admin will
want the most specific, that's why he chose that list to clone.

 > Right.  My understanding is that templates are not considered part of 
 > a list configuration, and config_list has always seemed to me to be 
 > kind of a quick-n-dirty tool, and never intended to be a 
 > be-all/do-all 1000000% perfect list duplication management system.

Sure.  Maybe it's time (for me) to try to bump 50% to 80% or 90%
though.  Anyway, that's what I'm thinking. :-)

Cheers!

Steve