From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 13 21:04:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CAC616A4CE; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:04:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1144443D58; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:04:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id A90F9148DB; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:04:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:04:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Mathieu Arnold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Volker Stolz cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports MOVED ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/portindex Makefile distinfo pkg-descr patch-varju X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:04:30 -0000 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