Maintaining ports (was Re: Support for Netscape/Mozilla plug-in on Linux AMD64 native platform)

Dalibor Topic robilad at
Wed Oct 31 16:57:33 UTC 2007

Kurt Miller wrote:

> If there was general porters group but a separate project for the BSD's
> that might would work too.

It probably didn't came out as I wanted it, but yeah, the idea I'm
toying around with is having a group for porters, and having separate
projects for each port (bsd, icedtea [1], ...) with different source
repositories as part of that group.

Since the current processes are focused around Members, and Members are
instantiated by Groups, rather than Projects, for bootstrapping purposes
we need some group that can handle member 'creation' for porting
projects. We can have one such group, or we can have multiple groups,
one for each porting project.

Alternatively, we could rely on the contributions of potential members
to porting projects to existing projects to become eventually
significant enough for existing groups to let them in, and grant them
membership status.

I'm not quite enthusiastic about that option, because it requires
potential members to porting projects to first gain credibility doing
something else, before they are allowed to be members of a porting project.

dalibor topic

[1] ... for a convenient definition of 'port'.

More information about the discuss mailing list