Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 03:36:28 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/smurflog Message-ID: <19980727033628.D1424@zappo> In-Reply-To: <19980726174726.A4151@nuxi.com>; from David O'Brien on Sun, Jul 26, 1998 at 05:47:26PM -0700 References: <199807270019.TAA10179@bone.nectar.com> <19980726174726.A4151@nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 26, 1998 at 05:47:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > For for simple ports (as opposed to more complex port Makefiles such as > Mutt, ssh, etc.) Committers often feel it w/in their capability to make > small changes. This is a necessary thing based on the sheer number of such changes that need to be made. Even upgrades haven't always gone through the MAINTAINER. Now, if someone upgrades a port for which a PR upgrading it has already been submitted (but ignored), then the MAINTAINER may complain. I recall sending an ~page complaint about this once... :-) > update the port for him. However as MAINTAINER, he has final say in > build options, direction of the port, etc. In the case of ache and nectar (aka. Jacques Vidrine), that's probably okay. :) Potentially it is necessary to ensure that MAINTAINER has chosen the correct direction for the port... -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980727033628.D1424>