From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 23:14:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5910B16A41F for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:14:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail1.fluidhosting.com (mail1.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C258A43D48 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:14:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 39754 invoked by uid 399); 10 Sep 2005 23:14:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.net@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Sep 2005 23:14:06 -0000 Message-ID: <432368BC.5000306@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:14:04 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050908) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Fenner References: <200509102222.j8AMMubj032724@bright.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200509102222.j8AMMubj032724@bright.research.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unifying WWW: pkg-descr lines for cpan ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:14:07 -0000 Bill Fenner wrote: > Any comments? I'm really glad that you brought this to our attention, and I agree that having a standardized way of doing this will be a great help for maintainers now, and in the future (when existing ports are copied as examples). This is exactly the kind of cooperation that Open Source projects should have, and I'll be glad to help with this update if needed. I respectfully disagree with Erwin, given that this change (at least the first group) won't alter how anything works, I think it should be done ASAP. If a tag has to slide on a port for the release and "hits" one of these altered files, not only will it not be a bad thing, it will probably be a good thing. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection