Doug Barton wrote: > If we have maintainers who are willing to keep these things > up to date and people agree that this is an acceptable [way]
Well, I'm not so sure about the ones I don't use, but the ones I do use are usualyl well maintained (either that or they get a PR form me), but there's also the fact that updating them is usually a no-brainer (in most cases it could well be automated, as Andrew Pantyukhin has suggested); it seems to me that a maintainer is not the most scarce resource in updating an XPI port, committer time seems to be a scarcer resource to me (but that's of course the point of view of a maintainer). > I'm particularly concerned about the situation where we have them in the > tree but they are not up to date. That's not only a waste of resources > it makes us look bad. Especially so because system-wide packages are then more difficult to update for the single user; I don't remember at the moment if a stale system package can be Disabled *and* installed locally by the user or not (as I usually update the port first without trying to update as user), but that (if it is the case that it's impossible) would be a strong additional reason to be sure to have latest version in the ports. But I'm not really sure about this, I will double check next time an extension I do use is outdated (before updating the port). -- Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/ “The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.” (Edsger W. Dijkstra) _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
