From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 21 23:34:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EDA106564A; Sat, 21 May 2011 23:34:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcus@freebsd.org) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9488FC17; Sat, 21 May 2011 23:34:17 +0000 (UTC) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4LNYFCI000665; Sat, 21 May 2011 19:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fruit-rollup.marcuscom.com (jclarke-pc.cisco.com [172.18.254.236]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4LNYAxg011801; Sat, 21 May 2011 19:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DD84BF2.20207@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 19:34:10 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke Organization: FreeBSD, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Dupre References: <201105141806.p4EI6upK087278@repoman.freebsd.org> <4DCEEA98.4090300@FreeBSD.org> <800a75fbf37a5bf34858274adf2b5cb5.squirrel@mail.experts-exchange.com> <4DD3E493.8010201@freebsd.org> <4DD3EAFD.20905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DD3EAFD.20905@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bapt , Doug Barton , cvs-doc@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Jason Helfman , doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook book.sgml X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 23:34:18 -0000 On 5/18/11 11:51 AM, Alex Dupre wrote: > Joe Marcus Clarke ha scritto: >> That makes sense, but given that we have other tools and sites that >> provide port information, is it better to recommend the shorter COMMENT >> that may not be sufficient to give a port intro, or should we opt for a >> slightly longer string? How will pkgng handle this? > > Read it in this way: is it better to have a useless pkg_info COMMENT > because it's truncated, or a nicer web page displaying ten additional > characters and probably a link to the pkg-descr? IMHO if you are looking > for a detailed description you have to look at pkg-descr in any way, 70 > chars instead of 60 don't make a difference, but a truncated comment is > like a 0-chars comment. This is my opinion of course. > Yes, a detailed description requires pkg-descr regardless. However, I have frequently used those extra 10 characters to provide a meaningful COMMENT. Such a COMMENT may entice me to read pkg-descr. It sounds like pkgng is going to be structured so that the COMMENT length won't matter. IF that is the case, I'm inclined to leave the 70 char recommendation as-is since, again, people have been basing COMMENT on portlint. Joe -- Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome@FreeBSD.org FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome