From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 19 18:40:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8756116A4CF for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E935043D58 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4JIe5BJ057160 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j4JIe5Xp057159; Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:05 GMT Message-Id: <200505191840.j4JIe5Xp057159@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Kirill Ponomarew Subject: Re: ports/81270: please remove bogus unmaintained mail/bogofilter-current port X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kirill Ponomarew List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:40:06 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/81270; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kirill Ponomarew To: Matthias Andree Cc: vanilla@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/81270: please remove bogus unmaintained mail/bogofilter-current port Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:40:00 +0200 On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:25:22PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: [emotions skipped] > I'm Cc:ing portmgr because they need to hit some committers with a > cluestick or revoke commit bits. Well, I think it's not a big deal that current version exists, if you don't like it or you think it's not suitable for ports collection, please explain it in technical details to maintainer. If maintainer would like to have this port and it's not broken and he's also ready to maintain it further, it's his business, not portmgr. > Why is not vanilla@ asking the maintainer of the baseline port first and > wait a few days before committing? Isn't communication committer policy? Right, that's why ask maintainer privately first, before pouring out a negative emotional stuff on all our heads. > Repeat: bogofilter "current" is NOT suitable to be packaged downstream. > And this is my statement as bogofilter maintainer, not port maintainer. Not all development versions are stable enough, they exist in ports collection though, because people need them for some reasons. If those ports build fine, and are helpful for people, I don't see any reason to remove them. So please remove portmgr from such kind of discussions, and speak with maintainer at first. -Kirill