From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 24 10:41:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B68F16A41F; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:41:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tobez@tobez.org) Received: from heechee.tobez.org (heechee.tobez.org [217.157.39.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C188743D48; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:41:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tobez@tobez.org) Received: by heechee.tobez.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C5F31125493; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:41:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:41:28 +0200 From: Anton Berezin To: Mathieu Arnold Message-ID: <20050924104128.GE14490@heechee.tobez.org> Mail-Followup-To: Anton Berezin , Mathieu Arnold , ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org References: <200509220748.j8M7mYMT043867@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050922164036.GA97847@utopia.leeym.com> <20050922184057.GA97327@heechee.tobez.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Powered-By: FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/databases/p5-Cache-Memcached Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:41:31 -0000 On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 12:05:06PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > +-le 22/09/2005 20:40 +0200, Anton Berezin écrivait : > | On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:40:36AM +0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote: > |> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:48:34AM +0000, Anton Berezin wrote: > |> > Update to 1.15. Require perl from ports. Assign maintainer to perl@. > |> Just curious... > |> > |> Is it a policy to assign maintainer to perl@ for the ports@ owned p5-* > |> ports? > | > | Not really, it's a matter of personal preference. I did not feel like > | having a maintainer lock on some of those ports, but I did not want them > | to stay unmaintained, either. There is, I think, a better chance that > | someone (myself included) will take care of such when they belong to > | perl@ as opposed to ports@. > > In other words, you want them maintained, but not by you ;-) That, I suppose, is one way to look at it, although it is not quite what I have had in mind. \Anton. -- An undefined problem has an infinite number of solutions. -- Robert A. Humphrey