Am Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:35:29 +0000 schrieb:

> --- Comment #8 from John Marino <> ---
> FYI, I'm removing this port tonight.   We've waited long enough.

In the strain of a bug I reported I also tried to fix this port, since the prior
maintainer seems to have abandonded this great port.

I'm a bit pissed off about the rude tune I feel treated!

The developer has patched the original sources to meet some FreeBSD requirements
regarding a readline issue now fixed and especially some serious bugs in 
bib2ris and a
transforming/migrating tool using UTF-8 encodings for LaTeX codings. Since not 
patches are 100% tested (but they work graeat for me in a scientific 
environment), the
upstream developer hestiates creating the new tarball. 

As I documented with this PR, I'm wating for the developer to publish a new

I spent lot of time to provide a workaround for fixing the lack of the new 
tarball and
some serious previously unresolved FreeBSD issues and the time I sacrificed is 
not only
"working time"! I mention this since I'm feeling put under pressure as the note 
sent to
me documents.

What is the policy of FreeBSD's port system? There are lots of ports waiting to 
be fixed
since they have serious issue, like silc-toolkit. Is this port also about to be 
or isn't there a "lobby" preventing this?

In a hurry, to prevent the destruction of the port textproc/refdb, I provided a 
The patch is a bit messy since I had to incorporate all changes made in the 
after creation of refdb-1.0.2.tar.gz (provided at: 

Please see PR "Bug 193484 - [textproc/refdb] Update port".

With regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to