Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:08:00 +0100 (MET) From: Thomas Gellekum <thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a kvetch and a proposal Message-ID: <199512191008.LAA15240@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951218192422.14834A-100000@mocha.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Dec 18, 95 07:37:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: > > Now, on to the proposal. I often find myself remaking a particular port, > one that I already have correctly installed, just to get at docs that are > hidden in the dist files. What I'd like is the ability to have the docs > automatically installed somewhere for me, permanently. It'd have to be > an optional thing, because I suspect there's a lot of people who are > either walking encyclopedias, or just don't care to clutter their disks. [...] > Is this needless complication, or a useful feature? Most of the ports could add a post-install target which copies over documentation to PORTDOCSDIR?=$PREFIX/share/doc/$PKGNAME, depending on a make.conf variable like $NOPORTDOCS. This should be off by default, like $NOMANCOMPRESS. Unfortunately you can't do this via bsd.port.mk, because different ports have different conventions for keeping their docs, so it complicates a lot of Makefiles and maintainers with many ports will hate you for proposing it :-). I'd vote for it, though it will take a while until the ports are updated. tg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512191008.LAA15240>