On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> The depreciation is only for those ports that don't have public available >> distfiles right? So that I agree that broken ports should be excluded from >> this depreciation. > > That is the way it is done, anyway there still could be some false > positive having people to doulble check is always good :) Agreed, but I just feel like these ports should not be in the depreciation list at the first place. That's my point my I could be wrong. > >>> >> So yes, always give people chance to fix ports, not remove them from the >> tree. >> >> And, do we have a list of all maintainer-wanted ports, because that would be >> great if we have. > Here you are :) > http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=maintainer&method=exact&query=po...@freebsd.org > What if we just put all un-maintained ports in this list instead of in the depreciation list? > >> Regards, >> Hai Lang > > regards, > Bapt
Regards, Hai Lang_______________________________________________ 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"
