From owner-freebsd-www@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 09:26:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-www@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E91C16A4CE; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18BB43D48; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:26:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (acs-24-154-239-203.zoominternet.net [24.154.239.203]) by pittgoth.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBUHQECv006716; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:26:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:26:17 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: "Simon L. Nielsen" Message-Id: <20031230122617.1d00ec3e.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031230171536.GB674@arthur.nitro.dk> References: <20031230164013.75450.qmail@web41504.mail.yahoo.com> <20031230115725.1f09e24e.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20031230171536.GB674@arthur.nitro.dk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: www@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: link X-BeenThere: freebsd-www@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Project Webmasters List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:26:20 -0000 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:15:38 +0100 "Simon L. Nielsen" wrote: > On 2003.12.30 11:57:25 -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:40:13 -0800 (PST) > > Mobasher Sobhan wrote: > > > > > The port specified does not exist, or has an invalid > > > name: > > > > > > > > > ports/apache13-fp/pkg-descr > > > You are coming from > > > > > > http://www%2efreebsd%2eorg/doc/en%5fUS%2eISO8859%2d1/books/faq/applications%2ehtml. > > > > Perhaps in these cases we should have people email the > > Maintainer or have the email go to ports@? > > Well, in this case the problem was that the port category was missing in > the FAQ, so www-(/doc-) was the correct responsible... > > I'm not really sure in which situations ports@ might be more appropriate > to send mail to (but there probably are some). True in this case, but at times (for instance when a port cannot be located anymore in the search) it may be easier to let people know that either an update has not been done on the site or to email ports. Perhaps I'm just thinking too much, not sure. -- Tom Rhodes