Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:46:45 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: port maintainers not in contrib.additional.sgml Message-ID: <xzpvfoq2oyi.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <1070833971.78821.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> (Pav Lucistnik's message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:52:51 %2B0100") References: <5.0.2.1.1.20031207171127.02d4f708@popserver.sfu.ca> <1070833971.78821.1.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I was under impression that only authors of new ports are listed there. > If someone take existing port, he's not automatically listed there. Anyone maintaining a port is most definitely a contributor and should be listed. > Rather than maintainer field you should pursue Whom: from port Makefiles > headers. The port Makefile headers are absolutely meaningless. I have no idea why they even exist, though ports people insist on keeping it. They provide no information which is not available in the Makefile itself or in CVS history. The Whom: line is often directly misleading as it is never updated, even in the case where the new maintainer has completely rewritten the Makefile so that the only thing left from the original is the header and the PORTNAME line. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpvfoq2oyi.fsf>