Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:30:09 GMT From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/81270: please remove bogus unmaintained mail/bogofilter-current port Message-ID: <200505191730.j4JHU9wg047782@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/81270; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net>, vanilla@freebsd.org Cc: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/81270: please remove bogus unmaintained mail/bogofilter-current port Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 19:25:22 +0200 On Thu, 19 May 2005, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > AFAIR, vanilla@ requested a repocopy for it, please ask him why he > needed it. I don't care who had this brain fart of adding a new sibling port for a release candidate, outdated on the day it was committed, and with the base port updated a day or two later. This is just stupid. I do care that the outdated bogofilter-current port is going away, and quickly at that. I'm Cc:ing portmgr because they need to hit some committers with a cluestick or revoke commit bits. Why is not vanilla@ asking the maintainer of the baseline port first and wait a few days before committing? Isn't communication committer policy? Repeat: bogofilter "current" is NOT suitable to be packaged downstream. And this is my statement as bogofilter maintainer, not port maintainer. My not updating the bogofilter port had a reason, namely that the code wasn't in shape for deployment. If people want to run bleeding edge versions, they should compile from CVS or tarball and read the lists. Please kill the bogofilter-current port, preferably including the CVSROOT stuff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200505191730.j4JHU9wg047782>