On Fri, 3 Jul 2026, Okan Demirmen wrote:

> On Fri 2026.07.03 at 16:02 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:

> > > so let me know which route you'd like to go and I'll try to do the work 
> > > for it as time permits. I don't really have a preference as long as we 
> > > remove the Python 2 dep which is my only goal.
> > 
> > I honestly don't know. Maybe a better option would be to remove it
> > from ports. Is anyone reading that actually uses mailman from OpenBSD
> > ports/packages? Any comments?
> 
> Yes, and I'm sure djm@ has it on mindrot as well; however installing and/or
> maintaining it outside of ports is not a huge deal if that needs to happen;
> however the seeming intent is to remove python2, which would make any install,
> ports or otherwise, of mailman (2.x) impossible.

Thanks! Very helpful feedback.

> 
> I do believe mlmmj is a likely migration candidate (though missing stuff),

Would it help to update to a newer release than what's in ports? Or do you 
mean upstream hasn't implemented features that would bring it to parity 
with what mailman has?

> and
> of course mailman 3.x (but that's an entire beast).

My initial plan was to import mail/mailman3 as a new port alongside 
mail/mailman and then I believe there are a bunch of optional components 
that go with it (like postorius, kyperkitty, etc, etc). Well my first goal 
was just to get the core mailman3 in and go from there.

> If this needs to happen, I
> think maybe a shot over the bow at the very least.

Honestly i don't see much stopping us from doing all 3:
- migrate mailman2 to the community fork if that works for folks
- add mailman3 to ports (at least the core piece)
- update mlmmj to a newer release?

And then folks can decide what path they prefer? I'm just not sure if the 
commuity fork is fully compatible with the current version.

> 
> Is mailman 2.x the remaining barrier to removing python2?
> 

One of a the small handful of final ports left (see my reply to Kirill for 
a complete list if of interest).