Re: new majordomo packages, please test

[Remco van de Meent <remco@dnd.utwente.nl>]

Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> Brandon Robinsom:
> > In the meantime I think we should drop majordomo before the release, and
> > maybe put out a press release explaining why.

I don't think it's in our users interest to remove the package. However, I
*do* think that a Big Notice about the evil licensing and the implications
of such thing (hence mention security problems, etc) may be put in place. 

This would also encourage, I think, the users to not use majordomo and
where applicable move to one of the other available list managers.

> Whatever happened to the idea of distributing it unchanged, with a patch
> that gets applied in postinst? Or if you're worried about having to change
> the wrapper code as well, why not distribute it like we do pine?

The package I just uploaded is an unmodified version of the upstream
package, that is, there are a couple of (documented) changes to the
Makefile; patches are provided in the /usr/share/doc/majordomo directory
with a pointer to them during postinst (they won't be applied
automagically). The wrapper doesn't need any patching at the moment - I
removed the support for uid/gid != 30/31 (the previous package contained a
patch to wrapper.c: getpwnam for the majordom user and group).


		Remco