[clc-devel] The question of maintainer protocol

Nick Steeves Nick.Steeves at shaw.ca
Fri Nov 19 08:50:00 UTC 2004


Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for.  Thank you for replying.  One 
other case I've been wondering about:  What if updating own port a, which 
depends on someone else's port b, cannot build without an update to b?  
Currently, I fork a httpup version to publish along side updated port a, 
while contrib's a remains old.

Perhaps we could put these guidelines into the Wiki?
\/                                   \/                                   \/
On November 19, 2004 12:56, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
> What might be of use are rules which are centered around ports, not
> people, like:
> - if a download is broken (as in fam), commit and tag
>   REASON: there's no point in keeping a broken port
>   ACTION: notify the original poster
>   NOTE:   have a look at the port; if you're not confident that it works
>           the same as before, try to get the original patch and
>           add it to the CVS itself
> - if it's a security or otherwise critical fix, send a patch to the
>   maintainer with an URL to the report. If the maintainer doesn't
>   respond in 2 days, commit and tag
>   ACTION: notify the original poster
>   NOTE:   if you're uncertain about the fix, contact clc-devel first
> - if you have change suggestions, contact the maintainer with a
>   description of your changes. If he doesn't respond, resend to
>   clc-devel to discuss it there and apply if it seems to make sense.


More information about the crux-devel mailing list