From owner-cvs-all Tue Jan 8 13:19:17 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from heaven.gigo.com (gigo.com [207.173.11.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6768837B419 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:18:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppp244-bsace7023.telebrasilia.net.br (ppp244-bsace7023.telebrasilia.net.br [200.163.6.244]) by heaven.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB387B8C4 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 65694 invoked by uid 1001); 8 Jan 2002 21:18:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20020108211814.65693.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:17:52 -0200 From: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira To: Bill Fenner Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/cvsd Makefile References: <200201072038.g07Kc5i40692@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020108091623.16370.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <200201081550.HAA02529@windsor.research.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200201081550.HAA02529@windsor.research.att.com>; from fenner@research.att.com on Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 07:50:17AM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.5-PRERELEASE X-Disclaimer: I hope you find what you are looking for... in life :) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 07:50:17AM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > Maybe I think our users are smarter than you do, but I guess I've > never had a problem understanding that no MAINTAINER line in a port > makefile meant that the port had no MAINTAINER. I do not want to start an argument here but your reply was uncalled for. I mean, I just pointed out that having a MAINTAINER line inside a Makefile makes pretty clear WHO the maintainer is without any guesswork (reading additional documentation puts anyone above the average line). I was not saying ppl are stupid just but having it makes it pretty clear. I am quoting the original message. Perhaps, my intentions were not clear the 1st time. Besides, I hope your reply was not a flame (I tried not to understand it that way) but it surely sounded like it. I understand your arguments, I was merely pointing out a reason for keeping it. Particularly, I do not care if it's there or not. If it was for me, I would ditch anything that can be moved inside bsd.port.mk but then it would remove some of the easy of read from many, many ppl. Just think of some of our slave ports around the tree. They illustrate it pretty well. My 2 cents, ps: Original quote: > In theory, I agree. In practice, we want users to be able to > check the Makefile and have the maintainer address there. > Sub-optimal but true. :( -- Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." Computer Science Undergraduate | FreeBSD Committer | CS Developer flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message