Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:09:44 +0200 From: "Tobias C. Berner" <tcberner@freebsd.org> To: mad@madpilot.net Cc: desktop@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lightdm maintainership Message-ID: <CAOshKtc8hDEPUH2PDyi1%2B%2BOo-AQNH8J2sjw2g3ZEtiXqgjJ7rg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47b358f9-7d1e-87fa-b64f-ed307af3744d@madpilot.net> References: <47b358f9-7d1e-87fa-b64f-ed307af3744d@madpilot.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Moin moin In my mind members of xfce@ implying you, are members of desktop@. So feel free to assign it to desktop@ and simply committing to it :) I would love to see some more people commit under the desktop@ hat. mfg Tobias On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 21:53, Guido Falsi via desktop <desktop@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Hi all! > > Recently maintainership for lightdm ports has been put back to the pool > for personal reasons. > > I am keeping the xfce ports updated it is an optional dependency of the > xfce port and a common choice for a display manager. In fact it is what > I usually suggest if asked about it. > > I have been thinking of taking maintainership as myself or as xfce@ for > x11/lightdm and x11/lightdm-gtk-greeter since I use them and they are a > common choice for xfce and I use them. > > Before doing this I thought, since I bet they are a common choice for > other desktop environment users as well, if it would be more appropriate > to assign them to desktop@. Any thought on this? > > Also I can't remember rules for implicit approval to desktop@maintainer > ports. Are people from kde@ xfce@ gnome@ (etc.) automatically included? > > -- > Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOshKtc8hDEPUH2PDyi1%2B%2BOo-AQNH8J2sjw2g3ZEtiXqgjJ7rg>