From owner-freebsd-doc Thu May 23 19:47:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-doc Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA27127 for doc-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 19:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27119 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 19:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA05691; Thu, 23 May 1996 19:46:43 -0700 (PDT) To: Sean Kelly cc: jrclark@felix.iupui.edu, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAQ Contribution In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 May 1996 11:33:21 MDT." <9605231733.AA26497@fslg8.fsl.noaa.gov> Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 19:46:43 -0700 Message-ID: <5688.832906003@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-doc@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I'm afraid I have to be critical as well here. With utmost resepect > to Misters Palmer and Hubbard, the ports section could certainly use > some work to make it more tutorial and less meandering. It reads like No insult taken, the ports document sucks. In fact, pretty much all the ports documentation sucks, from the "how ports work" to the "how to make a port" guides - it was all written ad-hoc and nobody took care to sit down and really think about what the ports collection was, how the average user might approach it, how the seasoned one might get more aquainted with it, etc and so forth. However, the ports collection just sort of grew along with the feature list in bsd.port.mk and the documentation reflects this. This needs a complete rewrite, using the same kind of up-front design philosophy as John suggests for the supported hardware guide. I'd *WELCOME* such an effort! Jordan