While working on updating an unmaintained port (I'm the author of the package), running make outputs:
The snobol4 port currently does not have a maintainer. As a result, it is
more likely to have unresolved issues, not be up-to-date, or even be removed in
the future. To volunteer to maintain this port, please create an issue at:
More information about port maintainership is available at:
But that URL gets me "Page not found."
(message from bsd.port.mk)
Meta bug: while entering this bug, the only choice under "Component:" was "Individual Port(s)", but now that the bug has been entered, the pulldown for Component includes "Package Infrastructure" and "Ports Framework"
I'm guessing this bug (251796), on which I'm entering this comment is a "Ports Framework" issue.
I don't know what component I should file the meta-bug (can't choose "Package Infratructure" or "Ports Framework" while entering a bug) should be filed against, or if it's a feature and not a bug!
To drop names, I know Jordan Hubbard.
(In reply to Phil Budne from comment #1)
since it is in Mk/*.mk, yes, it's "Ports Framework". But really it does not make as much difference as people assume -- in general, the same people look at ports PRs in both "Individual Ports" and "Ports Framework".
The choice to only show the former is intentional, due to the high number of errors when people submit PRs.
My personal opinion is that "Package Infrastructure" should never be shown to the general public. It was intended only for "issues affecting the build machines @FreeBSD.org" and has never really been used for that purpose, instead only attracting false positives.
If you want to file a bug for the bugmeisters to look at, use Services/Bug Tracker.
Looks like all manner of URLs are hosed, including ones for the porter handbook that worked for me recently!
Perhaps this needs to be flung to the Documentation Engineering Team?