Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:57:27 -0400 From: qjail1 <qjail1@a1poweruser.com> To: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? Message-ID: <58F67DB7.3050300@a1poweruser.com> In-Reply-To: <y3ux-bqku-wny@FreeBSD.org> References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> <y3ux-bqku-wny@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jan Beich wrote: > qjail1 <qjail1@a1poweruser.com> writes: > >> I maintain a port and I have users complaining that the pkg system >> takes many months before the updated version of my port shows up in >> the pkg system. > > Better ask committer assigned to your bug to add MFH tag or send an > email to ports-secteam@ (and CC portmgr@) which commit to backport. > For leaf ports such requests are unlikely to be declined, just keep > in mind risks due to using old dependencies and possible regressions. > My port is nothing but two sh scripts and an example directory plus the man pages. It has no dependencies and no regressions. Does this port qualify for MFH tag? Is this something I can put in the port Makefile?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58F67DB7.3050300>