Steve, I apologize that we've not delivered the response you expected. I agree that our ticket guidelines and port submission and update process are not as streamlined as perhaps they could be.
Sorry that my initial response to you was short; I had probably dealt with a lot of other tickets that day and was running low on energy. I didn't mean to be rude; I just meant to provide factual constructive feedback. I did download the attachment you provided. It does not contain a MacPorts Portfile or a diff of one. That is what we need in order to move forward. This is not arbitrary or optional: the Portfile is the recipe that tells MacPorts how to install a piece of software. It is the very essence of what a MacPorts port is. You asked in the ticket why nobody else had responded. That's what Josh's response was trying to answer: the reason nobody answered is that because nobody was Cc'd on the ticket, nobody was notified about your remarks (except for those few users who have subscribed to receive emails for all changes for all tickets). The existing pb2make port has no maintainer, so there's nobody who particularly should be Cc'd, so it would take someone actively browsing tickets and happening to find yours to see them. If in the future you file a ticket that is not dealt with in a timely manner, an email to this mailing list reminding us to look at it is welcome. You did not mention in your original report that the current version of the pb2make port was unfetchable; sorry I did not realize that until now. I am looking into your ticket now, trying to modify the Portfile as needed. I'll post my progress in the ticket. If you're interested, our guide has some instructions for Portfile development: http://guide.macports.org/chunked/development.html If anything is unclear or insufficient in the documentation, feel free to ask here on this list. -Ryan _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
