Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 12:50:38 -0300 From: lioux@uol.com.br To: Jay Krell <jay.krell@cornell.edu> Cc: ade@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/15481: ports/devel/codecrusader slightly broken Message-ID: <20000402125038.B20347@Fedaykin.here> In-Reply-To: <006b01bf9c50$6715c560$0201a8c0@jayk_home4nt>; from jay.krell@cornell.edu on Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:06:07PM -0800 References: <006b01bf9c50$6715c560$0201a8c0@jayk_home4nt>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:06:07PM -0800, Jay Krell wrote: > > >However, I'd rather send > >in full patches later on and take over if its okay with the maintainer. > > The patches should probably be sent to the original author besides just the > port maintainer. That should probably be the case for all ports in case it's > a real bug or the author is willing to maintain an #ifdef __FreeBSD__ or > #ifdef __BSD__ or #ifdef __unix__ or whatever the case may be.. I totally agree. However, I think that sending patches to original author should be handled preferebly by the original maintainer, for he/she is the one who knows what will get in/out of /patches. That's what I do for the few ports I maintain. I always try to coordinate all changes with the authors. At least, when they are willing to cooperate. :) -- regards, mferreira To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000402125038.B20347>