Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:17:44 -0600 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: steve@havk.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/japanese/skkfep Makefile Message-ID: <200103222217.QAA12259@windsor.research.att.com> References: <200103212026.f2LKQ2d15684@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010321180600.N469@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <200103220627.AAA12181@windsor.research.att.com> <20010322004125.U43429@bsd.havk.org> <200103222138.PAA04691@windsor.research.att.com> <20010322155336.U97160@bsd.havk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The reason I prefer the implicit no MAINTAINER line is because it's harder to have a single value if each port has it in it (e.g. the whole reason this came up was that this port had MAINTAINER=freebsd-ports@freebsd.org). The value of having a single "no maintainer" value is that the distfile and bento surveys can have a single list of ports with no MAINTAINER (e.g. http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/portsurvey/ports@freebsd.org.html or http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/ports@freebsd.org.html ). I feel strongly about it being consistent; I don't feel strongly about presence of MAINTAINER=ports@freebsd.org vs. no MAINTAINER line. I think it's easier to be consistent if you let bsd.port.mk be consistent, but if the community is willing to help keep things consistent then I don't mind keeping the line in there. If I'm the only one enforcing consistency, then I'll continue to tend towards removing them. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103222217.QAA12259>