From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep  2 17:11:59 2012
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 31C991065688; Sun,  2 Sep 2012 17:11:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:11:59 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Alberto Villa <avilla@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20120902171159.GB10884@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201208312252.q7VMqj07007701@svn.freebsd.org>
	<20120901040818.GA37499@FreeBSD.org>
	<CAJp7RHb_FJB6QgjODYp02NbCubc5Gu1R0poNVi-aJzfA7wAHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJp7RHb_FJB6QgjODYp02NbCubc5Gu1R0poNVi-aJzfA7wAHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,
	ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r303449 - head/Mk
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree <svn-ports-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all>,
	<mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all>,
	<mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:11:59 -0000

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