From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 25 23:24:38 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2738B16A46D for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44DD13C46E for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l4PNOaHY021772 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 19:24:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Fri, 25 May 2007 19:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:24:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200705252222.l4PMMcB2021333@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <200705252222.l4PMMcB2021333@freefall.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: ports/112999: editors/nedit broken by either xorg-7.2 or gcc-4.2 imports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:38 -0000 On Fri, 25 May 2007, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > Synopsis: editors/nedit broken by either xorg-7.2 or gcc-4.2 imports > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->deischen > Responsible-Changed-By: edwin > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri May 25 22:22:38 UTC 2007 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Over to maintainer > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=112999 I'm confused. This looks like it is an open-motif problem according to the submitter. Steve, is it OK to close this PR out, or should it be reassigned to the open-motif maintainer? -- DE