Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] >
(output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones.
This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ...
Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?