Attached is a patch for mailman-2.0.12.ebuild (still masked at the moment of writing this). This is what the patch basically does: * add dependency on virtual/cron * verify that filesystem is not mounted with "nosuid" option (thus mailman will not work!) * install missing mailman images into apache icons directory (as sugested by mailman's documentation) * in pkg_config: - add the ability of automagically set up the cron jobs for user mailman in pkg_config - test if user is using smrsh in sendmail and link Mailman's wrapper
Created attachment 2468 [details, diff] mailman-2.0.12.ebuild.diff
The "qfiles" dir is not created.
How about rewriting the apache config file based on the INSTALLDIR variable? A la: sed -e "s:/var/mailman:${INSTALLDIR}:" \ ${FILESDIR}/mailman.conf > mailman.conf (Also, how about allowing INSTALLDIR to be set from the command line, rather than direct ebuild edit? It may be against the ebuild philosophy, but it makes a lot easier than editing ebuilds - even with local overlays. Maybe like: if [ -z ${INSTALLDIR} ]; then INSTALLDIR="/var/mailman" fi )
Patrick, could you be more precise please? I could find no reference to "qfiles" in the mailman documentation, portage programmers how-to, or in the ebuild itself. If there still is an issue with Pau's patchfile, I'd like to contribute to fixing it somehow, but I need more information on what's wrong with it. I patched the ebuild with Pau's patchfile, and it seemed to install like a charm. Is there a reason we can't unmask this? I would certainly like to see mailman in the portage tree, as I have need of it. This might be unrelated, but how can I remove mailman from the masked packages list? I checked and double-checked the /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask file, and mailman never showed up.
NOTE: mailman-2.1 has been added to portage (currently marked unstable) Please test this new version. Once all problems have been resolved it should be marked stable.
GLSA 2.1.1 should be used
