From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Apr 13 10:24:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA04252 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from news1.gtn.com (news1.gtn.com [192.109.159.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA04245 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by news1.gtn.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) id TAA21972; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:00:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by knobel.gun.de (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA05359; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:02:07 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:02:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andreas Klemm To: Joerg Wunsch cc: mike@binghamton.edu, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: knews port uploaded In-Reply-To: <199604131140.NAA19310@uriah.heep.sax.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, J Wunsch wrote: > As Andreas Klemm wrote: > > > > > knews-0.9.6.port.tgz has been placed in > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/incoming/ > > > > > > But you're aware that knews is already in the ports? It's still at > > > version 0.9.3 there, but i assume that's not a big deal. > > > > What's wrong with the new version, Joerg ?! > > Nothing, but the message sounded like it were a new *port*, not only a > new *version*. Not only the message sounded like that ... Mike simply wiped us out of the Makefile, so as we'd had never ever done anything for the package in the past :-( Luckily I wasn't just working on an update for the port myself. Mike should have asked first, since he isn't the maintainer of the port. We don't need the term "MAINTAINER=", if everyone is hacking around in existing ports ;-)) Mike, don't get me wrong and don't take my criticism too serious. Everybody is happy, if the hard f****** work gets done and if we have a nice and up to date ports collection. But only the maintainer should maintain a port, because he is the maintainer. Sounds logically, or ?! ;-)) Andreas /// - -- andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ $$ Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de $$ pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<< -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMW/eDvMLpmkD/U+FAQGnRgP8C8LfcPw6uwrG82gI65OydsIzi5m/8yrD LHatzy915fvCf4rIifAyy8fUee6uLxDI0T72v3JIi5/CoCyaJPLLzdsTFpwHB5Ng 3f1gsb30pGbO9V3DAYB2nY9ZM8jBkrw+Of/IkPHxUowPfYPVCazVaSaHrcn5GN+O xDCWwFd9zoM= =JbXx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----