From owner-freebsd-doc Tue Feb 12 19: 1: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from wrath.forked.net (wrath.forked.net [216.65.131.190]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980C037B404 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from wrath.forked.net (IDENT:logo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wrath.forked.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1D2s5sJ006696; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:54:05 -0800 Received: from localhost (logo@localhost) by wrath.forked.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g1D2s4Uq006692; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:54:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: wrath.forked.net: logo owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:54:04 -0800 (PST) From: Valentino Vaschetto X-X-Sender: logo@wrath.forked.net To: Tom Rhodes Cc: Dima Dorfman , Subject: Re: replacement In-Reply-To: <3C697FE0.90608@pittgoth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You do have a point here. It even confuses me :). How about have the role be port and package, but have them both do the same thing. Anyway, I think we should get this committed, instead of letting it just be another good idea lost somewhere in cyberspace. -val On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Tom Rhodes wrote: > Valentino Vaschetto wrote: > > > I like this idea. The only issue I have with it is the fact that it's > > only a package. Would it be possible to have 2 new roles? A > > package role and a port role? > > > > -val > > > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > > > > >>I propose to replace the tag with and a "role" > >>attribute as follows: > >> > > > Can I add to Val's thought. I thought everything was a port, but some > have prebuilt "packages"... Now if i'm correct on that notion (I don't > think i've ever seen a package with no port other than the yahoo IM, but > that isn't even on the FreeBSD site. I think the filename tag and a > role attribute is fine, but wouldn't a role="package" role="port" > confuse some people or maybe be a bit overkill? In a sence, just use > the role="port" or maybe mix both the old method and the new to become > role="net/cvsup" or similar so that it leads to that port, and the > reader will have to choose to download the package or do a make install > in the ports directory :) > > Just a quick opinion, if it matters, I just think that having package > defeats the purpose because then users have 2 options (use the port? or > use the package?) > > > > -- > Tom (Darklogik) Rhodes > www.Pittgoth.com Gothic Liberation Front > www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message