Michael Lorenz <macallan@netbsd.org> writes:
>> So http://netbsd.org/People/port-maintainers.html is a polite fiction,
>> then?
>
> It doesn't mention a port-arm maintainer, only maintainers of the 
> individual ARM-based ports, just as Ben said. I have no idea how that 
> would make it a 'polite fiction'.

Yes, it is true, there is no "ARM portmaster" per se, there are
portmasters for individual ARM platforms.

It is true, however, that many portmasters who are out there are
essentially inactive. This is especially noticed in the i386 and amd64
ports which have gone without an active portmaster for a long time at
this point, and which are, arguably, the most important ports in the
tree.

I think that rather than being defensive about the issue it would be
better if the project worked on solving it.

Perry