If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
Marcus von Appen
mva at freebsd.org
Wed Dec 18 11:45:03 UTC 2013
Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir at gmail.com>:
> It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the
> ports-related communication, just because the community is growing.
> Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to
> filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show
> they want to discuss their failed builds, whatever.
> I think automated failure reports (ports-qat) would easily be assigned
> to a separate list.
> I would suggest at least the following divisions: ports-questions@
> would be for things like howtos, problems with managing ports,
> upgrading, versioning, etc. ports-devel@ for all sorts of ports
> build/install issues (port maintainers would be the primary
> responders), and ports-auto@ for automated repots like QAT. And the
> current ports@ would be aliased to ports-questions at .
There's already ports-bugs@ for issues with ports (see the info on
And this also would be the correct address for QAT reports, which
are actually spamming the ports@ list (also imho).
Personally, I do not think that we need yet another list :-).
More information about the freebsd-ports