Re: Regarding port(s) you maintain in FreeBSD ports collection

> On 7. Nov 2021, at 23:40, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday,  7 November 2021 at 20:27:01 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>>> On 7. Nov 2021, at 20:06, Dan Mahoney (Ports) <freebsd@gushi.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>>> You're receiving this mail because you have one or more ports that
>>>>> are affected by the change proposed in
>>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32880 ...
>>> 
>>> This caused me some headscratching (wait, is my port here but not
>>> in the list?  Am I mailed because a port here is a dependency of my
>>> port?)
>> 
>>> I???ve concluded that instead I???m receiving this mail because you
>>> sent it to the entire ports mailing list.  Am I wrong?
>> 
>> At least one of the affected ports is maintained by ports@ (=unmaintained).
> 
> That makes it rather pointless to say "because you have one or more
> ports".  Now *everybody* has to go through the list to find whether
> they're affected or not.

Not really, as I assume everyone maintaining these ports received a separate email addressed to the address used in the MAINTAINER field. That’s consistent with other emails received on ports@ (like update notices from portscout).

>  It would have been better to exclude ports@
> from the list.

Or change the wording for that specific email, I was also slightly confused  and checked the list of affected ports, just to make sure - also as a consumer of ports.

> But what I see is that really only ports@ was on the
> To: list.
> 

Which makes sense, as those emails were sent to maintainers (one email per maintainer). Again, that’s consistent with other communication to ports@, even though in this case, some specific wording would’ve helped.

Just to be clear, I only explained what happened there, I didn’t send those emails or was involved in any way.

-m