Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:40:08 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: William LeFebvre <bill@lefebvre.org> Cc: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports/74590: new port request: devel/exiftool Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412220031470.19173-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <41C8E608.7030101@lefebvre.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, William LeFebvre wrote: > > Port requests are not supported in GNATS > > Then where are such requests to be made? As the documentation would > certainly lead one to believe that they should be submitted in the manner > I chose. It doesn't seem that we are at consensus on this. My approach has been to mark such PRs as 'suspended awaiting patch'. But, realistically, there is probably not much difference between letting a port request languish in that state and just closing it. As of earlier today, there were around 180 'new ports' in the queue -- almost all of which have the patches to create them. We simply don't have enough ports committers to add them as quickly as they come in, and take care of all the other problems as well. Given that, the best two approaches -- albeit imperfect -- is to generate patches yourself and submit them to GNATS and cross your fingers, or simply post on freebsd-ports asking if anyone else has some work-in-progress. It's also possible to check in GNATS and/or portsmon to see if someone else has filed a PR to create such a port (portsmon is much more accurate than just searching the GNATS synopses). The URL is http://portsmon.firepipe.net/portsprsbyexplanation.py?explanation=new. Sorry, it's a volunteer project, and that's just the way it is. If you can point out where the documentation says to send requests into GNATS, perhaps we should change that text to something more like the above. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0412220031470.19173-100000>