Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:04:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports MOVED ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/portindex Makefile distinfo pkg-descr patch-varju Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131601510.10142-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <C0730A7444E989C2AE8A09CE@[192.168.1.51]>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > | Remove port on maintainer/upstream's request > | > | PR: ports/71534 > | Submitted by: maintainer > | Approved by: portmgr (linimon) > > was this a good idea, as it's what a lot of people are using because of the > portsdb/bdb bug ? Well, my view is that if we are asked to remove a port, and the license is not crystal-clear (which, from reading the source, it was not), then we are obligated to do so. Note: I'm not really happy with this development -- perhaps someone else can arrange to take it over -- but from my reading of the email response from the author, this was our only course of action. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. mclhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131601510.10142-100000>