Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:11:34 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/75551: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile since a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing. Message-ID: <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:59:38 GMT Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Synopsis: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile since a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing. > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: pav > State-Changed-When: Tue Dec 28 16:59:05 GMT 2004 > State-Changed-Why: > Maintainer promised to integrate this patch into his next update. Pav, why is the state "close" more appropriate that analyzed ? I mean I could forget about them ;) > (Bottom line here is that you should approach maintainer directly, > without the detour via send-pr) For two stylistic ones yes, but for the dir permissions (75549) and "UntrustedDeliveryAgent" and "QuarantineAgent (75548), I tend to believe a pr is OK. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041228211134.056bb9b3>