From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Jul 9 20:14:44 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A400415E4FB9; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:14:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE8A84B45; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:14:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.92 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1hkwVd-0008Fn-H7; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 22:14:41 +0200 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 22:14:41 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Sergey Akhmatov , FreeBSD Ports Security Team , FreeBSD Ports ML , flo@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for commiter: security update for databases/percona56-server Message-ID: <20190709201441.GB34918@home.opsec.eu> References: <8bb194c6-5873-bd50-efdc-9d606158bf31@akhmatov.ru> <70daf271-aa81-cabd-9b26-887c1f5c18eb@FreeBSD.org> <6210af30-da80-741d-c615-55b5ec680e89@akhmatov.ru> <20190709200958.GA34918@home.opsec.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190709200958.GA34918@home.opsec.eu> X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:14:44 -0000 Hi! > > Maybe the current maintainer of databases/mysql* > > could adopt them, which seems reasonable because they have common > > ancestry. Otherwise I'd like to adopt the port myself. > > Please submit a PR with a patch to change maintainer, add me > to the Cc: list. We'll change it after that PR times out. One thing that might be the reason for this neglect of those ports: The currect version seems to be percona80, but there's no port for this. Then there's the competition from mariadb -- so why is the percona version still relevant ? Can you elaborate ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 One year to go !