Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:33:32 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Marcus Alves Grando <mnag@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Andrew Pantyukhin <sat@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/misc/compat5x Makefile pkg-descr Message-ID: <20060603223332.GA26432@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20060603221808.GB713@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <200606031355.k53Dtq9f037874@repoman.freebsd.org> <4481A857.9040308@FreeBSD.org> <20060603221808.GB713@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:18:08AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I presume this was triggered by the recent thread on -ports > encouraging people to take ownership of unloved ports. Unfortunately, > this (and the other FreeBSD compat ports) are exceptions where the > general rule that "maintainer = ports implies unloved" doesn't hold. Right. There are a few ports that are considered "key ports" that in the past we have wanted only handled by senior developers who are aware of all the possible complications. There is no hard-and-fast rule for this. I'm sorry if the original claimant wasn't aware of this. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060603223332.GA26432>