From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 16:50:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@smarthost.ysv.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 BD4FAECE for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A886C92B for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s46Go1w0035001 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s46Go1pe034987; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:01 GMT Message-Id: <201405061650.s46Go1pe034987@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "C Hutchinson" Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Reply-To: "C Hutchinson" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:50:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/188127; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "C Hutchinson" To: rene@freebsd.org, linimon@lonesome.com Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:47:44 -0700 (PDT) > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 02:00:01AM +0000, C Hutchinson wrote: > > From: "C Hutchinson" > > > > Is gnats broken? Is there any way to get the pr(1) system to find > > potential references before making a final call? > > GNATS doesn't really have a concept of "port". That makes it easy for > committers to overlook a particular PR. Indeed. IMHO that seems like overhead the already over-burdened committers could do without. I mean no offense. I'm just thinking; there must be a better way, for all concerned. :) I'll try to set aside some time, and see if I can conceive a more efficient solution, and make a POC (proof of concept) for review. > > In theory we ask committers to make sure there is not an existing PR > for a port, before deleting it. > > You might find portsmon (http://portsmon.freebsd.org) useful for this > task. e.g. see > > http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=www&portname=apache24 . Thank you. Yes, That's pretty much how I determined as much as I did for net/spread (ports/188853). > > mcl Thank you, Mark, and sorry for bouncing your mail (unintended). Your MX has been white-listed. :) --Chris