Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:25:54 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: maintainer for upcoming linux-fc6 ports Message-ID: <68908509@bsam.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070324231332.wnz1k6xjkckk4wss@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:13:32 %2B0100") References: <77867496@bsam.ru> <20070324231332.wnz1k6xjkckk4wss@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:13:32 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:25:43 +0300): > > I'd like to public my intention according upcoming linux-fc6 > > ports. All new ports initially will have /me as a maintainer. > > When linux_base-fc6 (note: not when compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.16 > > becomes the default at -CURRENT) becomes the default linux port those > > infrostructure linux ports maintained by emulation@ ATM will get the > > list name as a maintainer. > This is hard to parse, but I think I got your intention. I know that in the past there have been some difficulties when linux base and infrostructure ports were maintained by one person. And I don't have an intention to grab the ports. To rephrase what I ment: - initial commit -- my maintainership; - compat.linux.osrelease becomes default at -CURRENT -- no changes; - linux_base-fc6 becomes default -- emulation@ maintainership for those fc4-infrostructure ports which are maintained by emulation@ ATM. > > Is it a right thing to do? Any recommendations? > I don't object, but why? If you go this way, add a comment near the Well, there will be a dozen audio ports. Should they all be assigned to emulation@? If Linux Emulation Team says "It's The Rignt Thing To Do" I'll be glad to do so. ;-) Just for now, I don't know if it's good to say "Hey, pals, I've got some (two-three dozens of) new ports you should look after". > maintainer line regarding this. And add a comment in pkg-descr (or > pkg-message?) that this port is for development purposes only ATM and > should not be used for daily work (or something like this). All those comments for sure should be given. Thanks, Alexander. Your comments are very helpful as usual. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?68908509>