Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 02:30:13 GMT From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/91962: [patch] Fix missing dependancy in www/cadaver Message-ID: <200601200230.k0K2UDQ6046161@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/91962; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@freebsd.org> Cc: Subject: Re: ports/91962: [patch] Fix missing dependancy in www/cadaver Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:20:28 -0600 On Thursday 19 January 2006 05:28, you wrote: > Synopsis: [patch] Fix missing dependancy in www/cadaver > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: edwin > State-Changed-When: Thu Jan 19 11:27:26 UTC 2006 > State-Changed-Why: > Leftover files: > > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 13745 Jan 19 11:25 > usr/local/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/cadaver.mo -r--r--r-- 1 root > wheel 13885 Jan 19 11:25 > usr/local/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/cadaver.mo -r--r--r-- 1 root > wheel 26663 Jan 19 11:25 > usr/local/share/locale/en@quot/LC_MESSAGES/cadaver.mo > > Are you sure that en@quot is a proper line? > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=91962 I think I'm a tad confused. If I reply to the mail you sent me it goes to freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org If I submit a followup to the PR it points to bug-followup@freebsd.org Which of the two would be appropriate? In the meantime kris@ has marked the port as broken. (Yes, I've taken took much time to deal with this) Should I modify the patch to remove the BROKEN tag or is that worthy of a different PR? Thanks for your patience and help, I'm slowly but surely getting up to speed on this port maintainer thing. :) -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601200230.k0K2UDQ6046161>