Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 16:04:45 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes Message-ID: <bug-206922-9-MMCzWzc1Xn@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206922-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206922-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206922 --- Comment #8 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- I'm not the one that enter the PR and starting spewing FUD and red herrings= .=20 You joined on your own accord. Do we need to get Core to make policy on whether or not UNMAINTAINED system= can be documented in the handbook? Are you speaking for portmgr? In other words, are you saying portmgr is publicly declaring that unmaintained software is suitable for the handbook? What is portmgr OFFICIAL position documentation requirements? It might be helpful to know because I absolutely dumbfounded that there is even a debat= e on this. P.S. The "some body prefer no-dep tools" is also fud.=20=20 pkg install synth installs a small package, and it's available on all synth-supported platforms. Or are you, as portmgr, telling people not to u= se official package binaries? As I explained before, if somebody is really cr= azy about building everything themselves, you could bootstrap synth anyway ("pkg ins synth, then build synth with synth and replace it"). Don't tell me tha= t's not an acceptable response to an already unreasonable position. It's completely valid so I REALLY don't want to hear any more FUD about single d= ep b/c 1) it's not a requirement and 2) there are already options that satisfy that and 3) portmaster is still in the tree. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206922-9-MMCzWzc1Xn>