From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 29 20:05:33 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 15E7616A41F for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:05:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from tinker.exit.com (tinker.exit.com [206.223.0.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6650E43D48 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:05:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from [206.223.0.5] (realtime [206.223.0.5]) by tinker.exit.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6TK5V22077043; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:05:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Message-ID: <42EA8C0B.2040000@exit.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:05:31 -0700 From: Frank Mayhar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050728) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Neuhauser References: <42E81050.7090305@cs.tu-berlin.de> <66A226C3557B48ED535E3FED@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20050727230523.GB54954@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728170401.GA9534@soaustin.net> <20050729105904.GC73490@isis.sigpipe.cz> In-Reply-To: <20050729105904.GC73490@isis.sigpipe.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.86.1/997/Fri Jul 29 01:07:29 2005 on tinker.exit.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] 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: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:05:33 -0000 Roman Neuhauser wrote: > When people see the port is maintained: > > - they wait for the maintainer to fix/update the port instead of > submitting a patch > - they communicate directly with the maintainer > - they don't bother at all, because the maintainer won't respond > anyway (applies to specific maintainers) Or alternatively, and speaking strictly for myself, send-pr a patch with a CC to the maintainer. If the maintainer never responds, the patch may well be committed and in any case it's tracked in the PR database. Someone someday may pick it up and use it if they need it. If the port is unmaintained, of course, I still send-pr the patch and I rarely if ever take over the port, simply because I don't have time to maintain more than the couple I already have. Of course, I consider none of this to be some kind of personal affront. Things are as they are, some ports are unmaintained and some maintainers never respond. That's just the way it is, but it _doesn't_ mean that FreeBSD should start accepting unmaintained ports. (If that's not what you're arguing, fine, but it certainly _seems_ to be, else I don't understand where the disagreement comes from). (Oh, and the "bullshit" I called was with respect to your [Roman] assertion that the "policy makers" won and everyone else lost. That's a gross oversimplification and is untrue to boot. I stand by what I wrote.) -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/