On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev: > > Big +1 for Dmitry here; ports@ is perfectly fine maintainer entity, much > > easier to work with, and often receives more and better care than many of > > seemingly "properly" maintained ports. > > Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code > linger in the ports tree?
I believe current measures work fine: check distfile availability, routinely run the port on tinderbox. What we are doing right now is enough; no need to make "maintained by ports@" mean anything particularly bad or unsafe. Real maintainers sometimes are just as bad when it comes to security and build fixes. Personally, I think of ports@ as being "maintained by Ports Fury, but they do not mind if I touch it sometimes". ./danfe _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
