Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:29:07 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/ports/Tools [was: GNU packages and gettext] Message-ID: <3F99B5C3.30403@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20031024183748.GA542@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> References: <20031023152135.GC15574@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <3F9877FA.7000204@fillmore-labs.com> <1066957266.31335.12.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3F987DB9.1000604@fillmore-labs.com> <1066958525.31335.16.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3F9882C5.1030800@fillmore-labs.com> <1066961895.31335.22.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3F991DD3.60707@fillmore-labs.com> <20031024183748.GA542@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Simon Barner wrote:
> Oliver Eikemeier:
>
>>Do you see what I mean? I guess most people use portlint, but few know
>>about the existence
>>of plist. Perhaps we should have a category portingtools, with portlint,
>>porteasy, porttools etc.
>>Even if it is only a virtual category it would make live easier for porters:
>>
>>consider to install
>> awk -F\| ' $7 ~ /\<portingtools\>/ { print $1" ("$2"): "$4 }'
>> /usr/ports/INDEX
>
> What about a meta-port that like for example the docproj port?
Not a bad idea. I like both, for the meta-port the maintainer has to
decide which tools are The Worthy Tools. But thats fine with me, whoever
does the port is right. The porters handbook says 'use portlint', so
everybody uses portlint:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/testing.html
How about a port wiki?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F99B5C3.30403>