2011/6/17 Lang Hai <freeal...@gmail.com>: > > 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?
They already are in this list :) That is this list I'm trying to cleanup >> >>> 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" > _______________________________________________ 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"
