Can someone please give me an idea about what I might have done wrong?
I'm not sure I applied the patch correctly as my test list does not
seem to be working properly with two maintainers. It does not respond to any x-commands at all.
Can you please let me know what needs to be done with the
patch? I just copied and pasted it into the rc.request file at a point that seemed OK, but maybe it was not - is there a best place to put the patch? Or do I need to modify something already there in the rc.request file?
TIA
Joe
<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> http://www.hartzler.net/smartlist/SmartList-FAQ.html#Section_7.1
In any case you can have multiple maintainers but not multiple
maintainer lines. After applying the patch in the FAQ you need to
enter the mainainers on one line seperated by a ','.
"segura" == segura segura@attcanada.ca writes:
segura> Can someone please give me an idea about what I might segura> have done wrong? [...] segura> Can you please let me know what needs to be done with segura> the patch? I just copied and pasted it into the segura> rc.request file at a point that seemed OK, but maybe segura> it was not - is there a best place to put the patch? segura> Or do I need to modify something already there in the segura> rc.request file?
Yes, the latter is the case. The patch contains some lines starting with a minus, some starting with a plus, and some starting with neither. Remove those with the "-" and add those with the "+". The other lines give you some context to better find the lines on which to work. The lines starting with "+++" and "---" name the files (+++ gives the new one, --- gives the old one).
This is a very common format for patches in UNIX; there is even a tool called "patch" that understands and applies this format.
Hans-Albert
** Reply to message from Hans-Albert Schneider Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de on Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:46:35 +0100 (MET)
"segura" == segura segura@attcanada.ca writes:
segura> Can someone please give me an idea about what I might segura> have done wrong?[...] segura> Can you please let me know what needs to be done with segura> the patch? I just copied and pasted it into the segura> rc.request file at a point that seemed OK, but maybe segura> it was not - is there a best place to put the patch? segura> Or do I need to modify something already there in the segura> rc.request file?
Yes, the latter is the case. The patch contains some lines starting with a minus, some starting with a plus, and some starting with neither. Remove those with the "-" and add those with the "+". The other lines give you some context to better find the lines on which to work. The lines starting with "+++" and "---" name the files (+++ gives the new one, --- gives the old one).
This is a very common format for patches in UNIX; there is even a tool called "patch" that understands and applies this format.
Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in the Unix world, it is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which is intended for use by non-programmers to require this kind of "tighten this bolt, loosen that one" maintenance. It is the result either of the laziness of the developers or of a deep need for the ego boost of being "insiders".
There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be controllable by an intuitive interface requiring no knowledge of Unix incantations.
Hans-Albert
At 7:14 AM -0500 11/15/01, Stan Goodman is rumored to have typed:
Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in the Unix world, it is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which is intended for use by non-programmers to require this kind of "tighten this bolt, loosen that one" maintenance.
I'm sorry...who was it that ever suggested that SmartList was designed to be used by non-programmers? I don't remember reading anywhere any of the developers suggesting that. (I also don't remember them suggesting that it wasn't, either.)
There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be controllable by an intuitive interface requiring no knowledge of Unix incantations.
I disagree.
If you want something that doesn't require a little knowledge, something that does all of your thinking for you, there are _many_ commercial packages on the market available to you that require no particular knowledge to operate. If, on the other hand, you are interested in using an open-source package that costs you nothing but perhaps a little time spent in understanding unix and procmail, SmartList is a great choice in my opinion. But you can't have it both ways...either invest some money, or invest some time.
To expect the developers to provide a commercial-level package, one designed for use by those who don't know how to use as simple a tool as patch or who do not have shell access to the machine, without financial renumeration is absurd. There's no _reason_ for SmartList to be controlled by a web-based interface, since there are commercial packages to do just that. The only people who insist on doing so are hosting companies who advertise, "Mailing List Software Included!" when including software they do not need to pay to license, and then refuse to support the add-on nonsense, shunting off their support costs to this mailing list. (Most of us, who actually installed SmartList, are then at a loss to help these poor souls, although even without using it I'm beginning to get a handle on how the installation is set up and works, including the existance of the ./bin and ./etc directories.)
Bottom line: if you're using free software, you need to invest some time in the learning curve. Either do so, or buy something that doesn't require it.
The developers continue work on SmartList because...heck, after reading postings like yours, I honestly don't know why they bother, I'm just thrilled that they do. They give away their time and labor receiving little back but frustration and annoyance, asking only that their users understand they need to make a small investment in time.
You may have the last word on this issue, should you choose, since I will not waste the list's time further with the obvious.
Charlie
I for one, want to thank all the developers of Smartlist for all the hard work that goes into developing a software program. Your work does not go un-noticed and the end result changes the lives of thousands of people for eternity.
Alan Northam www.daily-devotions.org (Daily devotions by email using Smarlist)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Summers" charlie@lofcom.com To: "Stan Goodman" stan@hashkedim.com; "smartlist" smartlist@Lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:38 AM Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Does SmartList support multiple 'maintainer=' lines?
At 7:14 AM -0500 11/15/01, Stan Goodman is rumored to have typed:
Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in
the Unix world, it
is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which is
intended for use by
non-programmers to require this kind of "tighten this
bolt, loosen that one"
maintenance.
I'm sorry...who was it that ever suggested that SmartList was designed to be used by non-programmers? I don't remember reading anywhere any of the developers suggesting that. (I also don't remember them suggesting that it wasn't, either.)
There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be
controllable by an
intuitive interface requiring no knowledge of Unix
incantations.
I disagree.
If you want something that doesn't require a little knowledge, something that does all of your thinking for you, there are _many_ commercial packages on the market available to you that require no particular knowledge to operate. If, on the other hand, you are interested in using an open-source package that costs you nothing but perhaps a little time spent in understanding unix and procmail, SmartList is a great choice in my opinion. But you can't have it both ways...either invest some money, or invest some time.
To expect the developers to provide a commercial-level package, one designed for use by those who don't know how to use as simple a tool as patch or who do not have shell access to the machine, without financial renumeration is absurd. There's no _reason_ for SmartList to be controlled by a web-based interface, since there are commercial packages to do just that. The only people who insist on doing so are hosting companies who advertise, "Mailing List Software Included!" when including software they do not need to pay to license, and then refuse to support the add-on nonsense, shunting off their support costs to this mailing list. (Most of us, who actually installed SmartList, are then at a loss to help these poor souls, although even without using it I'm beginning to get a handle on how the installation is set up and works, including the existance of the ./bin and ./etc directories.)
Bottom line: if you're using free software, you need to invest some time in the learning curve. Either do so, or buy something that doesn't require it.
The developers continue work on SmartList because...heck, after reading postings like yours, I honestly don't know why they bother, I'm just thrilled that they do. They give away their time and labor receiving little back but frustration and annoyance, asking only that their users understand they need to make a small investment in time.
You may have the last word on this issue, should you choose, since I will not waste the list's time further with the obvious.
Charlie
_______________________________________________ Smartlist mailing list Smartlist@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/smartlist
** Reply to message from Charlie Summers charlie@lofcom.com on Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:38:41 -0500
At 7:14 AM -0500 11/15/01, Stan Goodman is rumored to have typed:
Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in the Unix world, it is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which is intended for use by non-programmers to require this kind of "tighten this bolt, loosen that one" maintenance.
I'm sorry...who was it that ever suggested that SmartList was designed to be used by non-programmers? I don't remember reading anywhere any of the developers suggesting that. (I also don't remember them suggesting that it wasn't, either.)
Nobody has said either. The fact that it is necessary to deal with Perl scripts in order to use the package effectively speaks for itself.
There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be controllable by an intuitive interface requiring no knowledge of Unix incantations.
I disagree.
You are, then, a Unix-knowledgeable person (more power to you).
If you want something that doesn't require a little knowledge, something that does all of your thinking for you, there are _many_ commercial packages
How I wish I were the owner of a server on which I could install one. Unhappily I am not. As it is, I have to rely on a hosting service and the choices its management has made. I have said before that I use Smart List because it is forced on me, not because I like it.
on the market available to you that require no particular knowledge to operate. If, on the other hand, you are interested in using an open-source package that costs you nothing but perhaps a little time spent in understanding unix and procmail, SmartList is a great choice in my opinion. But you can't have it both ways...either invest some money, or invest some time.
Like most people, I try to make the best use of my time. If Unix were the center of my life, I would devote lots of time to understanding it and the languages used on it.
To expect the developers to provide a commercial-level package, one designed for use by those who don't know how to use as simple a tool as patch or who do not have shell access to the machine, without financial renumeration is absurd. There's no _reason_ for SmartList to be controlled by
Do you read this stuff after you write it?
a web-based interface, since there are commercial packages to do just that. The only people who insist on doing so are hosting companies who advertise, "Mailing List Software Included!" when including software they do not need to pay to license, and then refuse to support the add-on nonsense, shunting off their support costs to this mailing list. (Most of us, who actually installed SmartList, are then at a loss to help these poor souls, although even without using it I'm beginning to get a handle on how the installation is set up and works, including the existance of the ./bin and ./etc directories.)
Those directories are not available to people in the position I have described above (tenants on hosting servers). It is absurd to base operating options on access to inaccessible directories.
Bottom line: if you're using free software, you need to invest some time in the learning curve. Either do so, or buy something that doesn't require it.
Again, you have it stuck in your mind that I have a server on which I can install a list manager. I don't. If I did, I would install something else.
The developers continue work on SmartList because...heck, after reading postings like yours, I honestly don't know why they bother, I'm just thrilled
They don't.
that they do. They give away their time and labor receiving little back but frustration and annoyance, asking only that their users understand they need to make a small investment in time.
Each user should invest time in order to compensate for the time not invested by the developers in making a more helpful interface. At least an integrated interface that doesn't consist of an array of separate scripts.
You may have the last word on this issue, should you choose, since I will not waste the list's time further with the obvious.
Ah! We are getting somewhere.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:28:23PM +0200, Stan Goodman wrote:
Each user should invest time in order to compensate for the time not invested by the developers in making a more helpful interface. At least an integrated interface that doesn't consist of an array of separate scripts.
unix *is* the integrated interface. perl scripts, shell scripts, procmail. this *is* the interface, and is why unix is so powerful. its like having M$ COM at your fingertips... literally.
when you understand this, if you care to (this isn't an affront, many people choose not to care), then things will make more sense.
if you don't like this eminently flexible, and well thought through interface, then use something else. you're complaining to people who think smartlist is just fine the way it is. iow, your words are falling on deaf ears.
** Reply to message from William Ahern wahern@25thandclement.com on Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:20:13 -0800
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:28:23PM +0200, Stan Goodman wrote:
Each user should invest time in order to compensate for the time not invested by the developers in making a more helpful interface. At least an integrated interface that doesn't consist of an array of separate scripts.
unix *is* the integrated interface. perl scripts, shell scripts, procmail. this *is* the interface, and is why unix is so powerful. its like having M$ COM at your fingertips... literally.
when you understand this, if you care to (this isn't an affront, many people choose not to care), then things will make more sense.
if you don't like this eminently flexible, and well thought through interface, then use something else. you're complaining to people who think smartlist is just fine the way it is. iow, your words are falling on deaf ears.
I have said several times that, if I could use something else, I would do so. To make it more clear, I would jump at the chance. This is the only list manager that my hosting service offers me.
Now that I know that this is not a forum for discussion of SmartList, but an Amen corner, I can relieve your evident anxiety: not having any Amens to offer, I won't post again.
Stan Goodman wrote:
I have said several times that, if I could use something else, I would do so. To make it more clear, I would jump at the chance. This is the only list manager that my hosting service offers me.
You know, the thing about this is that the hosting company provides this one free software, but in no way prevents you from installing your own list software and many, many people do just that. What you are not going to get by installing your own, is the ability to administer the list from the web interface provided by the hosting company, but that isn't so big a deal... the web interface is not the only way to get at your domain content/software!! It is intended to provide a convenience and to speed web site administration, not to completely replace any other means of accessing and dealing with your files! Pretty much every hostig company provides SSH access to domain space, as well as ftp..
--Joyce
At 23:34 +0200 15 Nov 2001, Stan Goodman stan@hashkedim.com wrote:
I have said several times that, if I could use something else, I would do so. To make it more clear, I would jump at the chance. This is the only list manager that my hosting service offers me.
Then complain to your hosting service. They're the ones that you're paying (I assume), and they're the ones that made the choice to use something is unsuitable for you. Saying that SmartList is not suitable for anyone is clearly false, since there are many people who are quite happy with it.
Better yet, talk with your money and move your hosting somewhere that uses software that fits your needs.
Now that I know that this is not a forum for discussion of SmartList, but an Amen corner, I can relieve your evident anxiety: not having any Amens to offer,
That's not true. SmartList is not perfect, and its actual problems can be (and are) discussed here. But, your problem is that you don't like the design goals, and are insisting that the entire design should be changed to suite your needs by people who are served perfectly well by the current design. And even if through some miracle (or large amount of money) you got it to happen, you'd apparently still need to convince your hosting company to upgrade to the new version.
I won't post again.
Hooray!
I have said several times that, if I could use something else, I would do so. To make it more clear, I would jump at the chance. This is the only list manager that my hosting service offers me.
It's really hard to complain about something YOU made the choice on. If you do not like what your hosting service offers, then it is time to talk (walk) with your money.
If your hosting service `forces` it upon you, then you should expect them to support it. It is what you are paying them for, right? My hosting service uses smartlist and they are just as helpful as anyone here.
"SG" == Stan Goodman stan@hashkedim.com writes:
SG> ** Reply to message from Hans-Albert Schneider SG> Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de on Thu, 15 Nov SG> 2001 12:46:35 +0100 (MET) [...] >> This is a very common format for patches in UNIX; there is >> even a tool called "patch" that understands and applies >> this format.
SG> Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in SG> the Unix world,
I did not intend to blame anybody by the remark about the "very common format"; I do not know everything either. I just wanted to say "in case you wonder", and "you may happen to see this in other places, too".
SG> it is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which SG> is intended for use by non-programmers to require this SG> kind of "tighten this bolt, loosen that one" maintenance.
Hmm, I think that SmartList is too powerful to forsee all possible uses (thanks to the underlying procmail, and to the ability to invoke UNIX commands). It is therefore probably impossible to wrap all the possibilities with an intuitive interface.
However, the more common things should be integrated; e.g., I think that the "multiple maintainers" patch does not hurt if it becomes the standard. The same holds for the other patches given in the SmartList FAQ.
SG> It is the result either of the laziness of the developers SG> or of a deep need for the ego boost of being "insiders".
I don't think so. Keep in mind that the developers work on SmartList in their spare time; they don't get payed for it. So it is only too natural that they focus on core functionality.
SG> There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be SG> controllable by an intuitive interface requiring no SG> knowledge of Unix incantations.
The FAQ lists some web interfaces, if you prefer them.
Personally, I have to say that most adaptions I made to "my" lists required writing rc-files, and thus required a lot of Smartlist and UNIX knowledge.
Hans-Albert
[This is more a suggestion to the SmartList maintainers, but I am not aware of a separate developers forum.]
What about integrating (some of) the patches from the FAQ into the next SmartList release?
A few minutes ago, I suggested:
HAS> However, the more common things should be integrated; HAS> e.g., I think that the "multiple maintainers" patch does HAS> not hurt if it becomes the standard. The same holds [in my opinion] HAS> for the other patches given in the SmartList FAQ.
And a second idea: What about including some more example (or frequently-asked-for) rc.local.* files, maybe in a "contrib" directory? Those given in the FAQ seem to be good candidates.
I am also thinking of my rc.local.s10.mhonarc (at least, there have been several questions on this list concerning web archive functionality), and maybe my rc.local.s20.mmmyy (see http://www.ha-schneider.de/software/smartlist/ ; the others listed there are a bit special).
[Forgive me if some of this already is the case; I am still at version 3.13.1.]
Hans-Albert
** Reply to message from Hans-Albert Schneider Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de on Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:51:36 +0100 (MET)
I take this as nearly total agreement with what I have written.
Thank you for your advice to acquire a Web interface. I will think about that as soon as I buy my own server.
"SG" == Stan Goodman stan@hashkedim.com writes:
SG> ** Reply to message from Hans-Albert Schneider SG> <Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de> on Thu, 15 Nov SG> 2001 12:46:35 +0100 (MET)[...] >> This is a very common format for patches in UNIX; there is >> even a tool called "patch" that understands and applies >> this format.
SG> Whether or not it is a very common format for patches in SG> the Unix world,I did not intend to blame anybody by the remark about the "very common format"; I do not know everything either. I just wanted to say "in case you wonder", and "you may happen to see this in other places, too".
SG> it is shameful, nothing less, in 2001 for software which SG> is intended for use by non-programmers to require this SG> kind of "tighten this bolt, loosen that one" maintenance.Hmm, I think that SmartList is too powerful to forsee all possible uses (thanks to the underlying procmail, and to the ability to invoke UNIX commands). It is therefore probably impossible to wrap all the possibilities with an intuitive interface.
However, the more common things should be integrated; e.g., I think that the "multiple maintainers" patch does not hurt if it becomes the standard. The same holds for the other patches given in the SmartList FAQ.
SG> It is the result either of the laziness of the developers SG> or of a deep need for the ego boost of being "insiders".I don't think so. Keep in mind that the developers work on SmartList in their spare time; they don't get payed for it. So it is only too natural that they focus on core functionality.
SG> There is no reason at all why Smartlist should not be SG> controllable by an intuitive interface requiring no SG> knowledge of Unix incantations.The FAQ lists some web interfaces, if you prefer them.
Personally, I have to say that most adaptions I made to "my" lists required writing rc-files, and thus required a lot of Smartlist and UNIX knowledge.
Can someone send this patch to me as well. I would like to have a second maintainer to my list so that he can manage the list in my absence.
Thanks, Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Albert Schneider" Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de To: segura@attcanada.ca Cc: smartlist@Lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:46 AM Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Does SmartList support multiple 'maintainer=' lines?
"segura" == segura segura@attcanada.ca writes:
segura> Can someone please give me an idea about what I might segura> have done wrong? [...] segura> Can you please let me know what needs to be done with segura> the patch? I just copied and pasted it into the segura> rc.request file at a point that seemed OK, but maybe segura> it was not - is there a best place to put the patch? segura> Or do I need to modify something already there in the segura> rc.request file?
Yes, the latter is the case. The patch contains some lines starting with a minus, some starting with a plus, and some starting with neither. Remove those with the "-" and add those with the "+". The other lines give you some context to better find the lines on which to work. The lines starting with "+++" and "---" name the files (+++ gives the new one, --- gives the old one).
This is a very common format for patches in UNIX; there is even a tool called "patch" that understands and applies this format.
Hans-Albert
-- Hans-Albert Schneider Hans-Albert.Schneider@mchp.siemens.de Siemens AG phone: (+49) 89 636 45445 Corporate Technology fax: (+49) 89 636 42284 Munich, Germany -- To get my public PGP key, send me a mail with subject "send key" -- _______________________________________________ Smartlist mailing list Smartlist@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/smartlist
Or do I need to modify something already there in the rc.request file?
Yes, the latter is the case. The patch contains some lines starting with a minus, some starting with a plus, and some starting with neither. Remove those with the "-" and add those with the "+". The other lines give you some context to better find the lines on which to work.
Thanks for the info. Now, when I look at my rc.request file, it only seems to have one mention of "maintainer" which comes towards the end and reads
:0: * !maintainer ?? . request
and a bit more which deals with checking to see if there is a maintainer e-mail address.
The patch (as far as I can understand it) is asking to remove lines which do not exist in my rc.request file (v 1.79 1997/04/28). Is it OK to just add in the lines marked "+" ?
The lines starting with "+++" and "---" name the files (+++ gives the new one, --- gives the old one).
I really appreciate the help I get on this list.
Joe
smartlist@lists.rwth-aachen.de
-
Aaron Schrab -
Alan Northam -
Charlie Summers -
Hans-Albert Schneider -
Joyce Miletic -
Mike -
segura＠attcanada.ca -
Stan Goodman -
William Ahern