Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:17:55 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" <freebsd@skysmurf.nl>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= <jadawin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date Message-ID: <5322E563.5030009@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20140314110830.GA88914@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> References: <201403140915.s2E9Fa8I009565@portscout.freebsd.org> <5322CB0E.7000908@marino.st> <20140314093036.GB17905@tuxaco.net> <5322DE4E.7090200@marino.st> <5322DEE3.6030604@marino.st> <20140314110830.GA88914@spectrum.skysmurf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/14/2014 12:08, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote: > John Marino wrote: > >> I wanted to suggest that maybe portscout can not send any notice to >> ports@ by rule if the port is unmaintained. > > On the other hand, seeing that a certain port is unmaintained might be an > incentive for someone to pick it up. Apparently it's just this doomsday > game that nobody seems to care for ;-) we get periodic summaries of all broken and deprecated reports. I don't see why that approach can be extended to this, e.g. "unmaintained reports with available updates". Once a month to cover every port like this is okay. The current approach of spamming per port on every change is not really okay. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5322E563.5030009>