Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:46:10 -0500 From: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@acm.org> Cc: Alexey Zelkin <phantom@ark.cris.net>, Valentino Vaschetto <logo@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <port> replacement Message-ID: <20020214134610.A90492@blackhelicopters.org> In-Reply-To: <200202141639.g1EGdih21528@bmah.dyndns.org>; from bmah@acm.org on Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:39:44AM -0800 References: <20020213230809.I92878@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202131916220.9649-100000@wrath.forked.net> <20020214124806.A7765@ark.cris.net> <200202141639.g1EGdih21528@bmah.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:39:44AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > If memory serves me right, Alexey Zelkin wrote: > > > Deadly. If we did it this way, would'nt we have to add new entities every > > > time we get a new port? Even though it's easier than using the <filename> > > > tag, I think that it would be a hassle to keep up to date with all the new > > > ports. We don't refer to all the ports in the docs. Heck, we don't refer to most of the ports. Maybe a hundred or so entities, total. That isn't bad. > Before we bikeshed this whole thing to death, can we at least get rid > of the <port> tag first, as there's essentially no argument on this > point? <commentary type="aol>Me, too!</commentary> ==ml -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@FreeBSD.org, mwlucas@BlackHelicopters.org my FreeBSD column: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020214134610.A90492>