Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:44:48 +0100 From: Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: A new and better way to do "make readmes"? Message-ID: <CAJ_iqtYw1xZ52qzkk=ggm5NHjGh5Lk1GsJnWSr8-NcmYXVa7wg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120127200325.66f36090@cox.net> References: <20111203173149.224a64e6@cox.net> <20111214004838.GK1593@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <20120112212905.GA78819@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <20120127200325.66f36090@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> wrote: > I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do > "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our > ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to > recognize which files are up-to-date and which really do need > rebuilding. > > I like to make sure my README.html files are all up-to-date after my > nightly ports tree update, but with the current scheme, that means > either rebuilding *all* of the files in the tree, or (as I'm doing at > present) using some sort of "kludgey" (kludgy?) workaround. > > So people are actually using the readme files? Are many people using them? I ask because I *never* use them (unless they are used by 'make search'?), I always use freshports.org (BTW, thanks for an excellent service!) when I need to find out anything about a port. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ_iqtYw1xZ52qzkk=ggm5NHjGh5Lk1GsJnWSr8-NcmYXVa7wg>