From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 23 04:36:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9D2106567C; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:36:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from smtpoutw.mac.com (smtpoutw.mac.com [17.250.248.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A478E8FC21; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:36:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from webmail076 (webmail076-s [10.13.128.76]) by smtpoutw.mac.com (Xserve/smtpoutw002/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m7N4MDMx014180; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:22:13 +0900 From: "=?ISO-2022-JP?Q?\"Nakata_=1B$B=3F=3F=3D(=1B(B\"?=" To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith Message-ID: <162546448158615974191683663738669677119-Webmail2@me.com> in-reply-to: <48AF842C.9030400@math.missouri.edu> references: <48AF842C.9030400@math.missouri.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 124.84.155.228, 61.113.95.38 Received: from [124.84.155.228] from webmail.me.com with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:22:13 +0900 Received: from [ 61.113.95.38] from webmail.me.com with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:22:13 +0900 Cc: maho@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: octave-forge 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: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:36:01 -0000 Hi Stephen, Thanks for your e-mail. >Dear Maho, > >I see that octave-forge has been broken for quite a while. Do you mind >if I have a go at redoing it? Yes - it's been broken. octave-forge has been changed drastically, and I'm not sure what to do. Therefore I'm really appreciated if you take it over! >I presume that you would want to do it meta-port style, that is, lots of >ports with names like octave-forge-plot-1.0.5. I'm not sure which way we should take - making a lot of ports vs single ports. IMHO we should make a single port so that keep the maintainance cost low. >I would be happy to do the work, and I think I could get it done quite >quickly, but I don't want to do it if you are about to do it yourself. Do you need to be the MAINTAINER? Thank you,