ports/97488: [repocopy] from linux_base-fc3 to linux_base-fc4

[Boris Samorodov]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:02:50 +1000 Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 02:59:39PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:23:25 +1000 Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:25:25PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 19 May 2006 09:10:55 GMT Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Synopsis: [repocopy] from linux_base-fc3 to linux_base-fc4
> > > > 
> > > > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->freebsd-emulation
> > > > > Responsible-Changed-By: edwin
> > > > > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri May 19 09:10:54 UTC 2006
> > > > > Responsible-Changed-Why: 
> > > > > Over to maintainer
> > > > 
> > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=97488
> > > > 
> > > > Shouldn't it be assigned to portmgr@?:
> > 
> > > If the maintainer approves of it.
> > 
> > Thanks for your answer, but some questions are left.
> > 
> > I'm not sure who is treated as a maintainer. Isn't it netchild, who
> > filed this PR? Or am I not understanding the procedure? Is it needed
> > to be approved from the email address freebsd-emulation@?

> The ports Makefile says: the maintainers email address is
> freebsd-emulation at FreeBSD.org. Big problem here, that's not a real
> person. But how can a script know this?

It was a script who I was talking to! :-)
Thanks, now it's clear.

> If I assign it to portmgr for a repocopy, I'll get the PR back in
> my lap when the repocopy is done, not netchild at . In the mean time
> (and sorry for the noise), netchild is old and wise enough to know
> how to assign this PR back to himself :-)

Yea, I suppose so. :-)

BTW, I agree with Alexander, maybe we may consider a new PR class
"repocopy"? Then the script will assign this sort of PRs to the
submitter (which is the right way, as I understand) but not
the maintainer.


WBR
-- 
Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer
InPharmTech Co,     http://www.ipt.ru
Telephone & Internet Service Provider