Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Benjamin Podszun <dar@darklajid.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: security/luasec needs bump to 0.5 - but there's no direct maintainer? Message-ID: <52F4E5E4.7020407@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <da044364-0e2f-49de-999f-2f6779b10055@darklajid.de> References: <da044364-0e2f-49de-999f-2f6779b10055@darklajid.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/7/2014 14:43, Benjamin Podszun wrote: > Hi. > > Change of mail address, new thread with a decent title (previously: > prosody update, which is sort of independent as far as I've confirmed so > far). > > With the attached patch luasec-0.5 builds & installs fine in my > environment. > > IF (capitals used for a reason..) I understand the following output > correctly, there's just one (known) consumer for that port: > > #pkg info -r lua51-luasec > lua51-luasec-0.4: > prosody-0.9.2 > > (where prosody in this case is already bumped to the last release, I'm > trying to push that in [1], as a follow-up to a 0.9.1 bump that never > landed) > > Would it be correct to assume that therefor the risk in bumping luasec > is quite small, especially since I'm successfully _running_ prosody [2] > using that port? > > Being utterly clueless: What's the right procedure to move forward, > especially without a dedicated maintainer for that thing? Hoping for a > sponsor on this list? Should I stop the discussion here and send a PR > instead - hoping that someone accepts that one? > > Thanks a lot in advance, > Ben Hi Ben, One approach is to submit this patch as a PR but add a change to make the yourself the maintainer! Then you're coming from a position of authority that the port needs bumping. :) seriously, why not? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F4E5E4.7020407>