From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 29 15:30:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFCE16A401 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA16143D46 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3TFUK4B049756 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k3TFUKZO049755; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 GMT Message-Id: <200604291530.k3TFUKZO049755@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Subject: Re: ports/96289: Adopt a few more ports + minor tweaks X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mark Linimon List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:30:20 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/96289; it has been noted by GNATS. From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: shaun@inerd.com Subject: Re: ports/96289: Adopt a few more ports + minor tweaks Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:27:55 -0500 ----- Forwarded message from Mark Blackman ----- On 29 Apr 2006, at 08:28, Mark Linimon wrote: >In the cited PR, the submitter mentions that he had filed ports/92830 some >time ago against sysutils/cronolog. You have apparently not responded to >that one; are you still interested in maintaining this port, or should I >feel free to assign it to the committer? Sure assign it to the committer, although his patches are indeed patches against the original source and not the actual canonical source. I.e. the original source hasn't been updated for some time. However, the patches are a good idea, I'd just rather see them go in through the software author than through the ports system. In any case, I'm quite busy these days, so please reassign. Cheers, Mark