Re: [mlmmj] Candidate for an 1.4.0.a1

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 05:57:11PM +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 17:51 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 05:45:48PM +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > while you want to remove the php-part, I've updated it (made it
> > > work
> > > with php 8), improved it (added some minor features to it, as view
> > > the
> > > log and config the text-files and allow split-user management of
> > > subscribers and config).
> > > If you're willing to keep including the php-part, I'm willing to
> > > upload
> > > my changes :-) While I'm at it: I also did some stuff concerning a
> > > html-archive (no bling-bling, but it works). And I also did some
> > > work
> > > on the mlmmj script to create a new mailing list.
> > > Concerning the munge-from: some mailing lists are created so that
> > > the
> > > original poster's info is not visibile by default. While I do
> > > understand it changes possible signatures, so does the existing
> > > "footer" option (which is not very usefull anyway, since it doesn't
> > > work for html-mails, which most people tend to send nowadays).
> > > 
> > > Franky
> > > 
> > 
> > What about have the php thing live outside of the project? like
> > https://codeberg.org/mlmmj/mlmmj-web or something like that?
> > 
> > I created an organisation juste to allow contribution to live along
> > and delegate commit access to people who actually know what they are
> > doing with this code?
> > 
> > I plan to add myself: https://codeberg.org/bapt/mlmmj-webview
> > and https://fossil.nours.eu/mlmmj-archiver/doc/trunk/README.md (which
> > is used to generate https://lists.freebsd.org/archives )
> > 
> > But I would prefer to see the code separated.
> > 
> > Would it fit with your proposal?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Bapt
> 
> 
> Well, redhat adds the old php-code in the doc-part of their package,
> while ubuntu creates a separate package. So in fact, I'm neutral, as
> long as packages can be created in some way :-) )
> On a separate topic, what about https://gitlab.com/mlmmj/ ? It does
> seem dead (yet again), but I'm open to codeberg too (don't know it
> though, curious to see that)
> 

Generally speaking I am agnostic gitlab or codeberg, I do like the foundation
model behind codeberg, and my nick sucks on the gitlab platform (bapt was
already used :D).

Best regards,
Bapt