Re: No maintainer?

According to the file "src/doc/RESPONSIBLE" prep is maintained by 
garbled, AKA Tim Rightnour. From what information I could find and 
looking through the source, he reworked most of the PPC ports to reduce 
redundant code between them, ported many machines, etc:
http://www.garbled.net/#About%20NetBSD
http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/bx/blosxom.cgi/index.front?-tags=prep
https://web.archive.org/web/20101223020512/http://cisx1.uma.maine.edu/~wbackman/bsdtalk/bsdtalk070.ogg 
(Interesting interview with him about PReP)

It appears he's not been active with PPC stuff since 2008 and committing 
changes (in general) since 2013.
https://freshbsd.org/search?q=&project%5B%5D=netbsd&committer%5B%5D=garbled&sort=commit_date

Martin seems to have been responsive to issues, perhaps a 
documented/listed active point of contact might be useful for those 
seeking it.
Glad to see other folks trying to get these machines working.

-Tim

On 8/7/19 7:37 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Ulrich Teichert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I don’t know anything about maintainers, but I have tried to get NetBSD
>>> installed on a 43p-150 without success, and am wondering if perhaps your
>>> patch will help. :)
>> Well, I surely hope so, so please try it out :-)
> Once it’s in a -current ISO, I’ll give it a shot!
>
>>> Maybe it’d be worth engaging one of the maintainers for other PowerPC ports?
> I’ve been thinking about this; would it make sense to merge the lists for the PowerPC-architecture ports under port-powerpc like the MIPS ports have been merged under port-mips?
>
> The system-specific ports still have separate distributions since all the systems boot differently and may require different tweaks as a result, of course. However, having one primary architecture list may help ensure there’s a critical mass of people who can look at and respond to anything someone brings up, even if it’s not directly related to the system they’re using.
>
>    — Chris
>
>