From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 2 07:21:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C148016A41F for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:21:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anders@FreeBSD.org) Received: from totem.fix.no (totem.fix.no [80.91.36.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5148D43D53 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:21:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anders@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (totem.fix.no [80.91.36.20]) by totem.fix.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA39D5F3828; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from totem.fix.no ([80.91.36.20]) by localhost (totem.fix.no [80.91.36.20]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 94918-02-7; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by totem.fix.no (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 47BD85F3824; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:20:59 +0200 From: Anders Nordby To: Bjoern Koenig Message-ID: <20050602072059.GA74957@totem.fix.no> Mail-Followup-To: Anders Nordby , Bjoern Koenig , ports@freebsd.org References: <429EAEDC.2020207@cs.tu-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <429EAEDC.2020207@cs.tu-berlin.de> X-PGP-Key: http://anders.fix.no/pgp/ X-PGP-Key-FingerPrint: 1E0F C53C D8DF 6A8F EAAD 19C5 D12A BC9F 0083 5956 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about the idleness of some port maintainers X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:21:01 -0000 Hi, On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:01:48AM +0200, Bjoern Koenig wrote: > isn't there a emergency plan in case of unreachable port maintainers? The porters handbook mentions this explicitly, go read http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer.html. > For example: print/acroread7 is broken for more than two weeks, there is > a good patch in the PR database and nobody does anything; just waiting > for the maintainer which didn't respond to emails for a month. This port is special, there has been different opinions about what and how to deal with it. If it is PR ports/81233 you are thinking about, pav asked the maintainer on may 19. So if he did not get any feedback, he should be free to commit the patch today actually. > This is not an individual case. I noticed this idleness with other port > maintainers too. I know that most people are very busy in their real > life and FreeBSD is just a secondary concern, but on the other hand this > makes ports very inflexible. I disagree. Popular ports usually get dealt with in a rather fast manner. But it depends on whether people actually submit good patches, or expect others to do it. > What do you think about explicit guide lines to let people with commit > privileges override the maintainer's prerogative of approving port > updates. Such guide lines might say that critical or unbreaking patches > are allowed to be commited after one or two weeks or even earlier if the > maintainer didn't respond to previous invocations. I saw also minor > addenda to certain ports in the PR database which are very useful but > waste away due to unreachable maintainers. Please, do read the guidelines that are already there. Cheers, -- Anders.