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]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131601510.10142-100000>