On Jun 22, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Anders F Björklund wrote:
> James Berry wrote:
>
>> Just a reminder to you (and others):
>>
>> If there is no other maintainer, then the maintainer should be set
>> to "nomaintainer". "openmaintainer" should be used only in
>> conjunction with a primary maintainer(s),
James Berry wrote:
> Just a reminder to you (and others):
>
> If there is no other maintainer, then the maintainer should be set
> to "nomaintainer". "openmaintainer" should be used only in
> conjunction with a primary maintainer(s), indicating that the
> primary maintainer is willing for ot
Hi Philip,
Just a reminder to you (and others):
If there is no other maintainer, then the maintainer should be set to
"nomaintainer". "openmaintainer" should be used only in conjunction
with a primary maintainer(s), indicating that the primary maintainer
is willing for others to make chang
On Jun 20, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
Have you tried using activate/deactivate instead of archives/
uninstall? I don't know if it would be significantly faster or not,
but it would probably be worth testing. I might eventually have time
to investigate this (but probably not for the
Yep, sorry about that.
On Jun 21, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I removed that symlink r37744.
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:50 PM, William Siegrist wrote:
Hmm. Its a symlink to a directory which doesnt exist on the server.
Maybe dluke inadvertently committed it.
http://svn.macports.org
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Rainer Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Landon Fuller wrote:
>> I would like to propose a policy for general consideration. I believe
>> it could save everyone energy and brain-cycles; let's call it
>> "batteries included":
>> As a general rule, ports shou
