From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 20 16:40:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA5B106568C; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:40:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (smtp.timeweb.ru [217.170.79.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1768FC3D; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MeAgy-0000pv-FM; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:40:48 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D83B860; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:40:44 +0400 (MSD) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 34911108842; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:40:36 +0400 (MSD) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:40:36 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Paul Schmehl Message-ID: <20090820164036.GA12998@hades.panopticon> References: <20090820023314.GF1295@hades.panopticon> <4A8CCC24.8050605@p6m7g8.com> <6B974976DD234EF08949F6A8@utd65257.utdallas.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6B974976DD234EF08949F6A8@utd65257.utdallas.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Migration to new SourceForge url scheme now inevitable, solution X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:40:49 -0000 * Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) wrote: > I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch > from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be > applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit PRs > for affected ports once a solution is agreed upon? This should be done globally, or else we'll end up with 90% unfetchable SF ports for 8.0 release. I'm preparing the patch currently. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru