From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 26 22:00:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D8616A403 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6E443D46 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3QM0fAE086056 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k3QM0eMg086053; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 GMT Message-Id: <200604262200.k3QM0eMg086053@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Matthias Andree Cc: Subject: Re: ports/96379: PLEASE DO NOT SEND OPENVPN 2.0.7 REMINDERS! X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Matthias Andree List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:00:41 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/96379; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Matthias Andree To: Doug Barton Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, freebsd@unixfreunde.de, ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/96379: PLEASE DO NOT SEND OPENVPN 2.0.7 REMINDERS! Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:58:45 +0200 On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Doug Barton wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > Please close ports/96379. > > > > I am not accepting patches to update the FreeBSD/DragonflyBSD port > > security/openvpn to 2.0.7. > > You may wish to consider whether the effort to continue telling people you > will not update the port will be lesser, or greater, than the effort > required to update the port. My decision (call it ruling if you like) is that I will not ask thousands of users to update just because a handful of fools can't get past the version number to the changelog. Most of the requests had actually been forwarded by committers to ask my feedback... -- Matthias Andree