Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:33:10 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Sign your name in pkg-descr is useless or useful? Message-ID: <20040326222515.K984@ync.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20040326230414.GB2124@k7.mavetju> References: <opr5eiuf0f8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <c3uoks$193u$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <4062FF7A.2040509@ciam.ru> <c3v3kn$1drs$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <20040326105845.Q779@bo.vpnaa.bet> <20040326230414.GB2124@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:01:35AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > This thread is the best example of a bikeshed that I've seen in a long
> > while. It's also a complete waste of time. Changing the MAINTAINER field
> > in the Makefiles will break a lot of tools, and provide no benefit. If
>
> If it breaks, it will need to be fixed. We can't not do things
> because things might break.
Sure, that's a great analysis IF there were a compelling reason to
change it. I've yet to see anyone post anything other than, "Here's
something we can fool around with."
If you do come up with some reason that the name of the maintainer
absolutely has to be in a makefile variable, put it in a new one,
something like MAINTAINER_NAME or something so you don't break working
code for no good reason.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040326222515.K984>