On Wednesday 18 January 2006 15:44, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> Maintainer of www/cadaver,
> Please note that PR ports/91962 has just been submitted.
> If it contains a patch for an upgrade, an enhancement or a bug fix
> you agree on, reply to this email stating that you approve the
> patch and a committer will take care of it.
> The full text of the PR can be found at:
Yes, I agree to this patch (I'm the one who submitted it)
>Class-Changed-When: Wed Jan 18 21:44:02 UTC 2006
>Fix category (submitter is not maintainer)
Synopsis: [patch] Fix missing dependancy in www/cadaver
State-Changed-When: Thu Jan 19 05:49:53 UTC 2006
Submitter is maintainer (please use correct email address next time
to speed up the process)
Class-Changed-When: Thu Jan 19 05:49:53 UTC 2006
From: "\"Josh Paetzel\" <Josh Paetzel" <[hidden email]>
In the meantime kris@ has marked the port as broken. (Yes, I've taken
took much time to deal with this) Should I modify the patch to
remove the BROKEN tag or is that worthy of a different PR? Thanks
for your patience and help, I'm slowly but surely getting up to speed
on this port maintainer thing. :)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> Which of the two would be appropriate?
ports-bugs-followup it more appropriate.
> In the meantime kris@ has marked the port as broken. (Yes, I've taken
> took much time to deal with this) Should I modify the patch to
> remove the BROKEN tag or is that worthy of a different PR? Thanks
> for your patience and help, I'm slowly but surely getting up to speed
> on this port maintainer thing. :)
If you say that the file directory "en@quote" is correct then I'll
submit the fixes, and remove the BROKEN line.