From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 7 13:56:19 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFBB66B for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960BE1FE5 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32149438BE; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:56:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52F4E5E4.7020407@marino.st> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Podszun Subject: Re: security/luasec needs bump to 0.5 - but there's no direct maintainer? References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:56:19 -0000 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