From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Aug 9 18:16:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23718 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23691 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sprice@hiwaay.net) Received: from localhost (sprice@localhost) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA31919 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:16:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:16:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Ports submissions via /pub/FreeBSD/incoming Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi all, I don't want to create a big fuss, but does anybody besides me find that having portballs sent to the incoming directory on ftp.freebsd.org is a bit of a pain? I have a much easier time closing PRs when they are attached to the PR. I know this fattens up the PR system but it does make good at keeping records of the original portball. I know, I know, all I have to do is send off an Email asking that the files be moved, but I find myself time and again just skipping over PRs because the files I need are not readily available. :( I for one would like to put in my vote to change the handbook to say that attaching the portball to the PR should be the norm. I know this would not be the desired solution for large ports (eg. history has shown the pine* ports to be larger than most), but it would catch most cases and make it easier for me at least. ;) Thoughts/comments? No flames. :) Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message