From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Oct 14 8:30:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7609E37B66C for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id IAA72016; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010141530.IAA72016@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Ade Lovett Subject: Re: ports/21985: port update Reply-To: Ade Lovett Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/21985; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ade Lovett To: guy@rucus.ru.ac.za Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/21985: port update Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:22:18 -0500 On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 02:29:41PM -0000, guy@rucus.ru.ac.za wrote: > port update - portlint seems to understand the new format, so I presume port > changes are now wanted in the new format? Absolutely. Any new submissions (certainly now, considering the new format has been around for "a while") in the old format are going to get summarily ignored (at least by me). > # This is a shell archive. *sigh* Port updates should: (a) be done as a patch, using diff(1), not a {sh,t}arball (b) have at least a vague attempt to mention the name of the port in the Subject/Synopsis field If you have any doubts, please refer to the Porting Handbook, (a) in particular seems to be being ignored/forgotten way too often these days. Perhaps summarily closing such PRs may help. PRs that follow the Porting Handbook are *much* more likely to get committed in a timely manner. Help us to help you. -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message