Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:28:56 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Subject: Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes) Message-ID: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems > running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of > portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion. Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) disclaimer: I have obvious bias, I wrote Synth and one *specific* goal to was address claims like yours above, meaning that I wanted to remove that excuse as a valid reason to leave portmaster in the status quo. > I believe that the issue of it having a man page is completely irrelevant. That was to counter the claim that portmaster "needs" documentation. The point is that it *has* documentation. > The handbook covers pkg, portsnap, and freebsd-update, all of which have > very comprehensive man pages and are covered in the handbook because man > pages and the handbook serve very different purposes. Every port should > have a man page, though I understand why many lack one and ports that > support the basic management of a system belong in the handbook. When > multiple and popular tools are available for the same job, it would be good > to summarize any different capabilities that might make one preferred over > another. That's not the point. The point is a sanctioned "official" tool is not maintained and my position is that is UNACCEPTABLE. To be in the handbook it must be a hard requirement to be *ADEQUATELY* maintained. I do not believe that requirement is being met today. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B754A8.3030605>