From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Oct 7 12:06:16 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3511A42DBBC for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:06:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5tN717gxz4kt3 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:06:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.94 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kQ8Cp-000BlT-2n; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:06:03 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:06:03 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Sergei Vyshenski Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: contributing to PHB Message-ID: <20201007120603.GU53210@home.opsec.eu> References: <364e595c-9b16-3401-03bc-ac3a6704c49f@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <364e595c-9b16-3401-03bc-ac3a6704c49f@gmail.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4C5tN717gxz4kt3 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12502, ipnet:2001:14f8::/32, country:DE] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 12:06:16 -0000 Hi! > Please advise me how to contribute a possible new section to PHB. [...] > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-July/119000.html > > It seemed that such a text needs a sort of approve from this list > freebsd-ports@ in the first place, but that message was ignored. > > Do you think such "request for comment" should be forwarded to doc@ > instead, and with proper formatting and in a form of a full-fledged > patch? Or this text should go to the dust-bin instead? The best way would be a patch against svn+ssh://repo.freebsd.org/doc/head in a problem report via bugs.freebsd.org (add me to the PR). -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?