From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Sep 26 14:48:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E522637B422; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca1-01.ix.netcom.com [209.109.232.1]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA02388; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8QLmgS39709; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asami) To: Will Andrews Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Maxim Sobolev Subject: Re: Porters Handbook policy References: <20000926112714.D30130@puck.firepipe.net> From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 26 Sep 2000 14:48:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: Will Andrews's message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:27:14 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Will Andrews * I say change the Porters Handbook such that it only requires a patchfile * to be prefixed with "patch-". Recommend that the patchfile's name * resemble in one form or another the actual file being patched, but don't * impose restrictions on what it should be. Yes, I think that's fine. In fact, I thought it was already agreed a while ago that it's the way to go, but it's a pity nobody (myself included) bothered to update the handbook. Geeze, can you guys relax a bit? Whatever works for the maintainer, man. -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message