On 2019/04/17 21:28, Daniel Jakots wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:11:59 -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk <k...@cranky.work> > wrote: > > > While I'm here, I figure I'll take maintainer unless someone has an > > objection. > > You should get it in a bulk next time, instead of just caring about one > category. Because it will end up in a bulk anyway and providing fixes > at the same time of the update is obviously better for everyone. > > This port is quite critical so I'm not sure how worth it is to have a > maintainer setup there (the same logic happens with youtube-dl where > there's a maintainer and it's often ignored).
Yes, there is no explicit maintainer here but as it's such an important port (7000+ things depend on it directly/indirectly) you really need to look for an ok from someone working in that area. > Last point, when I updated it sthen@ asked me to bump in python.port.mk IIRC that was for a previous update where it changed the plists of some ports built using setuptools, so some ports would not package unless they were done with the expected setuptools version. I don't think it's necessary for every update. (Note these would have been a package failure not a build failure; sometimes people just test building and not packaging of dependent ports and miss failures).
