Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:11:59 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Alberto Villa <avilla@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r303449 - head/Mk Message-ID: <20120902171159.GB10884@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJp7RHb_FJB6QgjODYp02NbCubc5Gu1R0poNVi-aJzfA7wAHaQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201208312252.q7VMqj07007701@svn.freebsd.org> <20120901040818.GA37499@FreeBSD.org> <CAJp7RHb_FJB6QgjODYp02NbCubc5Gu1R0poNVi-aJzfA7wAHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:22:13AM +0200, Alberto Villa wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Thanks for making it more accurate! > > No problem! > While you're here, can you please explain the logic for the > parenthesis you added to AVAHI and MDNSRESPONDER? Good question. I was hesitating about these two entries myself (whether to add parenthesis or not). Eventually I decided that "Zeroconf support" is important feature enough to be outlined on its own, thus embracing actual implementation. Similar logic I used to reword CD ripping support (I went even further with those three entries and dropped the "via" word as it seemed to make the phrases too heavy -- again, I understand that this is arguable). That said, it both cases that was my humble judgment based on how resulting descriptions sound to my ear, esp. in combinations with other OPTIONs (I studies a few hand-crafted examples before my commit). I do not feel particularly strongly about it though; if folks think that all "via ..." parts should be treated equally, I would not object dropping emphasizing parenthesis. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120902171159.GB10884>