From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 19:10:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAEB16A4CE for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3E543FE0 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:10:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAE3AIFY024338 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:10:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id hAE3AITi024337; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:10:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:10:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200311140310.hAE3AITi024337@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Mark Linimon Subject: Re: ports/52159: updates to pr:ports/52130 and pr:ports/52132unnececary files in shar output X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mark Linimon List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:10:19 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:10:19 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/52159; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Linimon To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, kay_lehmann@web.de Cc: Subject: Re: ports/52159: updates to pr:ports/52130 and pr:ports/52132 unnececary files in shar output Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:35:36 +0000 This PR referenced two other separate PRs. The first was closed by kris on Sat Nov 1 17:18:55 PST 2003 after not having gotten a response from the submitter about the state of build problems with the proposed port. So, if if the submitter is still interested in adding that port (sysutils/klineakconfig), it should now be submitted as an entirely new PR. The second is still pending; I have taken the liberty of copying the comments from here into that one. In the future, it would help us ports committers to be less confused if submitters could keep each "update" PR particular to one port. In fact, this PR really could have been done instead as two separate followups to the existing PRs, rather than as a new PR itself; that would be preferable in the future. All of this is just "for future reference".