Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:12:29 -0400 From: Leonard Zettel <zettel@acm.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Handbook 4.2 - ports overview Message-ID: <200408180912.29072.zettel@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <58215A0C-F10F-11D8-A951-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <58215A0C-F10F-11D8-A951-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 08:08 am, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Leonard Zettel wrote:
> > Well, this struggling newbie, using vanilla stuff lying around,
> > has managed to get at least three examples of what he would
> > call ports trees on his system. One is for executables, and
> > two are connected with documentation. This led me to say
> > "a".
>
> Hmmm... sorry, I don't get it. How do they differ?
>
First, I apologize for not saying earlier "thank you for your Interest"
(and patience with an ignorant newbie).
On my system at the moment
/usr/ports contains make files used to build executables.
/usr/doc contains make files that build documentation.
/usr/www contains make files that build documentation related to
the FreeBSD web site.
I guess it boils down to whether "ports tree" means "something
that builds system executables" or "something that contains make
files". If the former, then is /usr/doc a doc tree? Is there
a community consensus on these terms?
-LenZ-
> -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408180912.29072.zettel>