From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 06:32:48 2006 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 6BE6F16A41F; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:32:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D3143D49; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:32:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 739EA3F8C; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:32:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:32:47 -0600 To: ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20060120063247.GD23156@soaustin.net> References: <20051212174221.47D0B229E7@mail.droso.net> <20060119220607.GA12244@soaustin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060119220607.GA12244@soaustin.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: linimon@FreeBSD.org, lawrance@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Old perl-based script to manage ports 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, 20 Jan 2006 06:32:48 -0000 On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:06:07PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > This is the second time that I know of that you've accused someone in > the FreeBSD community of having questionable ethics (for those following > along at home, I was the first. I was willing to put that aside as a > mistake.) I owe Michael a terrible apology. The email that I had this impression from is indeed a misattribution: On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:14:22PM -0700, Vizion wrote: > [Michael C. Schultz wrote]: > > portsmon is your software, and keeping it hostage to changes in > > ports is IMO unethical. > > As I have pointed out elsewhere I think Mark's accusation is both > unfair and totally unwarranted - it only diverts attentions from some > good point that he makes. Michael's text is the latter sentence and Vizion's text is the former, but a careless misreading led me to assume the opposite. Carefully rechecking the thread (and private emails) confirms my mistake. I really screwed up on this one big-time, folks, and I'm sorry about that. This is especially embarrasing in an email talking about how the community members need to work together. red-faced, mcl