Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 14:47:16 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Cc: doc-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-doc@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook book.sgml Message-ID: <4DCEF864.50105@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DCEF2E8.8060106@freebsd.org> References: <201105141806.p4EI6upK087278@repoman.freebsd.org> <4DCEEA98.4090300@FreeBSD.org> <4DCEF2E8.8060106@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/14/2011 14:23, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On 5/14/11 4:48 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> Isn't the issue whether or not 70 characters will wrap in any of the >> places that COMMENT is used? > > That's a concern, but the fact is most people base the length of COMMENT > on the recommendation of portlint (which has been 70 characters > forever). No one has complained about COMMENT wrapping at 70 characters > that I have heard of. Do you know of any place where a COMMENT> 60 > characters wraps? You're the one asserting that 70 characters is safe. :) -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DCEF864.50105>