From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Sep 18 11:22:28 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E072537B423; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA04355; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Matthew Emmerton Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Port Maintainers In-Reply-To: <002d01c0210a$beca4350$1200a8c0@zircon> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > For some time now I've seen many requests come to the ports mailing list > which really should be handled by the maintainers of individual ports, not > the people who look after committing PRs. As usual, the standard response > is "contact the port maintainer". At first I wondered whether it was simply > inexperience or ignorance that caused people to turn to the ports list for > assistance, but over the last few months, I'm beginning to think whether the > problem lies on the other side of the equation with the maintainers > themselves. If you're having problems getting a response from a maintainer, they can always be replaced by someone more responsive - after all, being a maintainer implies an active process. Send a polite summary of your attempts to contact the maintainer to the -ports list and we'll take a look at the problem. Same goes for bouncing emails, etc. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message