cvs commit: ports/cad/admesh Makefile

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev:
> > Big +1 for Dmitry here; ports@ is perfectly fine maintainer entity, much
> > easier to work with, and often receives more and better care than many of
> > seemingly "properly" maintained ports.
> 
> Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code
> linger in the ports tree?

I believe current measures work fine: check distfile availability, routinely
run the port on tinderbox.  What we are doing right now is enough; no need
to make "maintained by ports@" mean anything particularly bad or unsafe.
Real maintainers sometimes are just as bad when it comes to security and
build fixes.

Personally, I think of ports@ as being "maintained by Ports Fury, but they
do not mind if I touch it sometimes".

./danfe