Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:42:25 +0100 From: Josef El-Rayes <josef@daemon.li> To: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@FreeBSD.org>, "Jonathan T. Sage" <sagejona@theatre.msu.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status reports - why not regularly? Message-ID: <20040113184225.GC432@jenny.daemon.li> In-Reply-To: <20040113183250.GB48706@voodoo.oberon.net> References: <20040113093903.GA84055@mimoza.pantel.net> <400409F4.3090205@freebsd.org> <400428DC.2060108@theatre.msu.edu> <20040113181911.GB432@jenny.daemon.li> <20040113182201.GA48706@voodoo.oberon.net> <400438CB.8030702@theatre.msu.edu> <20040113183250.GB48706@voodoo.oberon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Kirill Ponomarew <krion@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:28:27PM -0500, Jonathan T. Sage wrote: > > Exactally, and as Mark pointed out, I think that keeping in changes to > > the ports infrastructure (bsd.ports.mk) would be an excellent idea. > > Yes, I think portmgr@ should mail to ports@ and explain the > most important updates to bsd.*.mk i was rather thinking about new major ports, or big repo copies. i think this is worth being mentioned in a report. of course things are covered on mailinglists and freshports and othere sites, but i think, as a summary on the whole projects work all areas should be covered. -josef [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iQEVAwUBQAQ8EVnFItmnnbU8AQLB+ggAkioxjdzW7KaiSwfUDI+sMcPu0neOhRLv m3FSu5saMyM2nfSMm6KcCzzJ5hog+pi0VCptIhR6tczTD3u3F+eyg4NJjAW2jxsX TbxsaAVrlb4zfn1vd1sM0qcRQr/iFl24jeOe5iesRCERGRbUoDQQUjpOEtpGGynY aKX6W0NC1Ddn9RqoDukLMRHesHVjOhAz9gNGRSZ1J2W0N3sRT6I3KddZb+2MjR5K rJtwzMHgx54Felr3Zi2n2DenVipmAW8XZ2snjIsFxQhK0zJq03KICQ5JLTTIY7ZE JQE+/nGKALdnFgCJ2LvVemZJRlUstI4UFfYodpnqx8gW0gv0iHr9Qw== =Zbwz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040113184225.GC432>