On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
1. Remove all mention of portmaster. That's what this PR recommends.
2. Do nothing.
3. Update the documentation to indicate the current status,
recommending alternatives if possible.
Number 4 is missing: find a maintainer for it.
I would volunteer for this. But before a real commitment i need a closer
look at it, which i will do next week. So please standby.
This is not just any port.
Anybody proposing to be maintainer, in my opinion, should first be
required to take over every open PR in bugzilla, then fix all the known
issues there (and elsewhere) and only then be assigned maintainership
because at that point they've proven they can do the job.
What I do not what to see is somebody putting their name in the
MAINTAINER field just to keep it from being deprecated, etc, when that
someone is either unqualified or has no intention of fixing the issues
or both.
It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent
maintainer for something that has not actually happened.
I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports
true and there are probably not that many people that can actually
maintain this script.
That would explain the lack of maintainers. Well, that, and it's
written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM).
Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port?
In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports
needed them. I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not
up to now.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
