From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Apr 22 14:10: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C28937B43C for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f3MLA2Z26448; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200104222110.f3MLA2Z26448@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Kevin Day Subject: ports/26773: update editors/joe to version 2.9.6 Reply-To: Kevin Day Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/26773; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kevin Day To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, petef@databits.net Cc: Subject: ports/26773: update editors/joe to version 2.9.6 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:01:51 -0500 (CDT) The reason I've been holding off in submitting something like this is because the author/developer of Joe has *Nothing* to do with these latest versions of Joe coming out. Others have taken the last version of joe that he developed, bumped the version number, made a bunch of changes, and are still caling it the same joe, with no differentiation that this is a fork of the original package. If Joe Allen endorses, or even recognizes these as being official, I have no problem with recommending that the newer versions be brought in. But, I do have a serious problem with some external group "taking over" a project like this without at least somehow marking that this is different than the original project. As far as I know, nobody has even audited the changes they've made to see that they aren't introducing (yet another) hole in this editor... I'd like to hold off a bit, regardless... -- Kevin (Joe maintainer) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message