Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:21:38 +0200 From: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@freebsd.org> To: Leonard Zettel <zettel@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Handbook 4.2 - ports overview Message-ID: <20040818132138.GB78450@abigail.blackend.org> In-Reply-To: <200408180912.29072.zettel@acm.org> References: <58215A0C-F10F-11D8-A951-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <200408180912.29072.zettel@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:12:29AM -0400, Leonard Zettel wrote: > 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? "The FreeBSD Ports Collection", the ports tree, etc. It's "the" since it's FreeBSD's one, a particular one. Using "a" makes me thing there are many ports tree. Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040818132138.GB78450>