From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 24 16:16:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BC8106564A; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:16:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sup.oook.cz (sup.oook.cz [94.23.0.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60DC8FC12; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.23] ([89.177.24.112]) (authenticated bits=0) by sup.oook.cz (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5OGGNkP086735; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:16:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) From: Pav Lucistnik To: Eitan Adler In-Reply-To: References: <4FE2315C.50706@FreeBSD.org> <4FE2F673.2080201@FreeBSD.org> <4FE518FB.1000802@FreeBSD.org> <4FE566CB.406@FreeBSD.org> <4FE67152.8080008@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5sX3nuuit6yX/ppDLjwb" Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:16:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1340554583.66026.3.camel@hood.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 94.23.0.135 Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton , Andriy Gapon , Ports Management Team Subject: Re: irc/xchat: limit icon blinking time X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:16:32 -0000 --=-5sX3nuuit6yX/ppDLjwb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The policy is: there is no policy. If the given port maintainer wants to add a non-official patch to provide extra functionality, he is free to do so. (Look at qmail ports.) If a port maintainer does not want to have specific patch in his port, he can reject it. (In the end, it would be him to support the patch over future upgrades etc..) Eitan Adler p=ED=B9e v so 23. 06. 2012 v 21:00 -0700: > Adding portmgr here to cc: should we accept new patches which add > additional features or fix upstream bugs, not specific to us, as local > FreeBSD ports trees patches? >=20 > On 23 June 2012 18:45, Doug Barton wrote: > > Several of my ports, to start with. Which is why I'm concerned at your > > attempt to change policy by fiat. >=20 > I'm not attempting to change anything. FWIW, why don't you upstream > the patches in your ports? >=20 > >> Our own stuff is completely unrelated. The question at hand is do we > >> continue development of third party software by means of patches to > >> the ports tree? > >> And the answer has always been, "Yes." I have no idea where you got an= y > > other idea. >=20 > As I understand it the answer has always been no: we don't continue > development of third party software in ports more than necessary to > make it function on FreeBSD. >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 --=20 Pav Lucistnik > Why do we need a film of "Lord of the Rings" when we have the book? Because watching a cg enhanced Legolas fire a flaming arrow into the heart of a warg is cool? - asdf@asdf.com in rec.games.roguelike.angband --=-5sX3nuuit6yX/ppDLjwb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk/nPVIACgkQntdYP8FOsoJSfACgobutA+PQBCDDSABrr0HLiHph 3vIAoJ7anmxjADF5FUvXVCCknq9IX2pY =O7xn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5sX3nuuit6yX/ppDLjwb--