From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 21:14:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@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 119B8B7F; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B2B9E5; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:14:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.120.92] (095-097-241-198.static.chello.nl [95.97.241.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA22435C7; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:13:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <540F6D8A.30907@marino.st> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:13:46 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QmVybmhhcmQgRnLDtmhsaWNo?= , John Marino Subject: Re: svn commit: r367769 - in head: . emulators emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod-legacy emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy References: <201409091918.s89JIStw037486@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 21:14:01 -0000 On 9/9/2014 22:01, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: > We have obviously come to a point where people remove ports which are > working fine and are used by quite a lot of people just to make sure > that as a FreeBSD user you have a hard life. Well done. Now go on and do > your shit to linux. Let me get this straight. You're a former portmgr. you've known all ports had to be staged before Sept 1 for months. You were personally notified by bdrewery 3 weeks ago that this port had an unstaged dependency which means would be removed 1 september. After all that, not only do you seem surprised and unaware (for which you have no excuse), you are also rude. If you don't want unstaged ports removed, stage them before the deadline. And look in the mirror if you want to blame somebody. John