From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Mar 14 3:49:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5177A37B719; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:49:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from roam@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from roam@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f2EBnIF82230; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:49:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from roam) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:49:18 -0800 (PST) From: Message-Id: <200103141149.f2EBnIF82230@freefall.freebsd.org> To: s.ende@gmx.net, roam@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/25220: Release and Development Ports Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Synopsis: Release and Development Ports State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: roam State-Changed-When: Wed Mar 14 03:43:20 PST 2001 State-Changed-Why: It seems people are happy with the current separation of certain ports in -stable and -devel versions. If you think a specific port should also be split in such a way, you'd have to take it up with that port's maintainer, inquire if they are willing to do the work involved in maintaining two versions of the port, and/or offer to maintain a -stable version yourself, if you feel up to it. This is not meant to sound harsh or 'dismissish' in any way; it's just an expression of how I, myself, see the current state of the FreeBSD Ports Collection, and, apparently, how the other ports committers see it, too - judging by the fact that there have been no reactions to my initial comment on this PR. (Eek. Sorry if your grammar parser hiccupped on that last sentence ;) http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25220 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message