From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 13:40:49 2003 Return-Path: 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 1EF3216A4CE for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.visp.com.au (gw.visp.com.au [202.6.158.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F3643F93 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:40:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tim@spyderweb.com.au) Received: from bofh.spyderweb.com.au ([202.6.150.37]) by gw.visp.com.au (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hABLekXS044481 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:10:47 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from tim@spyderweb.com.au) Received: from spyderweb.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.spyderweb.com.au (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with SMTP id hABLegmq088441 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:10:42 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from tim@spyderweb.com.au) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:10:42 +1030 From: Tim Aslat To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20031112081042.513ebdc5.tim@spyderweb.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> Organization: Spyderweb Consulting X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:40:49 -0000 In the immortal words of Sam Lawrance ... > Pick it to bits, if there are solutions I want to find them :) The biggest problem I can see is that CVS is our biggest limitation. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to add functionality into CVS which would allow per directory r/w permissions on some kind of user/group based authentication. Maybe it's worthwhile investigating a better alternative? Another solution might well be to submit each port/group of ports into it's own module rather than the tree as a whole. Some food for thought. Cheers Tim -- Tim Aslat Spyderweb Consulting http://www.spyderweb.com.au P: +61 8 82243020 M: +61 0401088479