From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Feb 8 01:01:31 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE20A9FE71 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:01:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A04B118B for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:01:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5B343BAF; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Removing documentation To: Warren Block References: <56B752FD.6000906@marino.st> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56B7E8E7.5040306@marino.st> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:01:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:01:31 -0000 On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > > It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent > maintainer for something that has not actually happened. I've seen it happen several times. I'm not accusing Torsten of thinking this way. I am saying I want any proposed maintainer to prove they can maintain it. By that I mean: fix it first. Fixes can come from anyone, they don't have to have the title of maintainer. >> I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports >> true and there are probably not that many people that can actually >> maintain this script. > > That would explain the lack of maintainers. Well, that, and it's > written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM). Wasn't this presented as a "pro" in the preceding post? :) > Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port? Irrelevant/non-comparable if the other ports are not documented in the handbook. > In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports > needed them. I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not > up to now. The situation has been well known (especially to anyone that filed a PR) but it should be pretty clear now. John