Time to change the debian-ports "list"?

[Steve McIntyre]

Could you please (technically) summarize what needs to be done from
listmaster side?

works just like the other regular lists
can subscribe to it; document that there is no longer
an address to reach *all* ports but that people should
eMail the individual ports’ lists (and cross-post if
needed, but only to the amount needed), and that the
discussion about
a) debian-ports.org infrastructure
b) porting Debian in general
c) questions related to setting up a Debian port,
including wanna-build, buildd, etc.

That's exactly it, yes. Thanks. :-)
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. ***@einval.com
"I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of
course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds

[Steve McIntyre]

Could you please (technically) summarize what needs to be done from
listmaster side?

works just like the other regular lists
can subscribe to it; document that there is no longer
an address to reach *all* ports but that people should
eMail the individual ports’ lists (and cross-post if
needed, but only to the amount needed), and that the
discussion about
a) debian-ports.org infrastructure
b) porting Debian in general
c) questions related to setting up a Debian port,
including wanna-build, buildd, etc.

That seems like a bad idea to me, tbh. There will be people who won't
to use it with its old meaning.
If there are problems with the current meaning of debian-ports, can't we
just retire the old alias and create a list under a different name?

Is there much point to that? I've not heard anybody at all speak up in
favour of the existing behaviour. If anybody does use try to use it
that way in future, the new list will most likely be the best place
for their mail to go...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. ***@einval.com
"I used to be the first kid on the block wanting a cranial implant,
now I want to be the first with a cranial firewall. " -- Charlie Stross