Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:28:26 -0800 (PST) From: Valentino Vaschetto <logo@FreeBSD.org> To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>, <doc@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: <port> replacement Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202131916220.9649-100000@wrath.forked.net> In-Reply-To: <20020213230809.I92878@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1. Definitely 'package', not 'port'. Ports are just the infrastructure > that produce packages. Why package? We didnt use <package></package> before in our sgml documents, so I think that we should keep it as "port". In html format, when a user clicks on the link for net/cvsup for example, it takes them to the cvsup port's page, and from there they have the option to download the package. When a user clicks on the link, it doesn't go and start downloading that package. Am I wrong? If I am, just ignore me on this comment. > 2. I have a nagging feeling that we should make sure the package's > category is included somewhere that DSSSL/XSLT stylesheets can > access it. > > <filename role="package">net/cvsup</filename> > > is less easy to parse (in a stylesheet) than something like > > <filename role="package" category="net">cvsup</filename> I agree with this. Even though it is extra typing, you're right that it would be easier to introduce into our stylesheet. > We can always make these entities, something like > > &pkg.net.cvsup; Deadly. If we did it this way, would'nt we have to add new entities every time we get a new port? Even though it's easier than using the <filename> tag, I think that it would be a hassle to keep up to date with all the new ports. -val To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.43.0202131916220.9649-100000>