Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 11:03:04 +1100 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes) Message-ID: <20160207000304.GA71035@eureka.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <bug-206922-273-PXN38rlW5F@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <bug-206922-273-YnY5vf8jP1@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <bug-206922-273-kkQfWZPv1w@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
I'm bringing this to the attention of the ports community to try to
come up with a consensus about how to handle existing documentation
for ageing packages, in this case portmaster.
This bug report suggests removing the documentation for portmaster
because it is out of date and no longer maintained.
But it's still in the ports tree, and people still use it. The
current wording (4.5.3.1) claims it is the recommended tool, which is
clearly out of date. marino@ (the submitter) writes:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 at 7:33:33 +0000, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote:
>
> You have a tool presented as "official" that hasn't had it's
> original maintainer in 4 years and was only kept on life support up
> until 9 months ago.
Agreed, the "official" (the term used is "recommended") status is
gone. But that's a reason to fix the documentation, not remove it.
As I see it, we have three choices, in increasing order of
desirability:
1. Remove all mention of portmaster. That's what this PR recommends.
2. Do nothing.
3. Update the documentation to indicate the current status,
recommending alternatives if possible.
The real issue here is that we shouldn't remove documentation for
software that is still available. In addition, wblock@ writes:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 at 14:48:07 +0000, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote:
>
> At present, portmaster still has no direct competition...
More generally, the way I see it is simple: we should try to keep the
documentation as up-to-date as possible. This means that we don't
remove documentation for existing packages. It also means that we may
need to change the content of the documentation if the status (not
necessarily the content) of the package changes.
One of the arguments for removing it from the handbook is that it has
a man page. That has some merit, but it doesn't help the people who
have used portmaster and now don't know what to do. Even if portmgr
is deprecated, the documentation should suggest a replacement.
Can portmgr@ come up with a clear, easy-to-understand policy?
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog@FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports
problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iEYEARECAAYFAla2ibgACgkQIubykFB6QiObDgCZAe436lNAyFA4nyvW3Xb5Rpi3
PBAAnjngnMxYtCVNjRCsIFGF81xBOJHl
=+JxF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160207000304.GA71035>