new ports and maintainer

Sean Farley sean at
Thu Jul 24 11:37:07 PDT 2014

David Evans writes:

> On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, petr at wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship for new ports. 
>> I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned ports. But is it usual to commit new ports as with `nomaintainer` as well, or should this be avoided? What to do with ports where the contributor does not assume maintainership? 
>> Any thoughts? Thanks!
>> ~petr
>> _
> This is done from time to time but my thoughts are that if you are going
> to create a port and submit it you should also be willing to maintain
> it.  Many other distributions would not accept a port on such a basis or
> drop it if no one was willing to maintain it.  MacPorts is more permissive.
> Again these are my thoughts as you requested not necessarily a statement
> of MacPorts policy.

I've been thinking about this and sometimes I wonder why we even have
'openmaintainer'? I mean, it seems like a huge I/O block because the
waiting 72 hours turns into forgetting the ticket for a few weeks.

Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port with
their name on it has changed.

Also, can we get tickets to be automatically closed when the commit
message says "closes #1234?"

More information about the macports-dev mailing list