Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:51:25 +0200 From: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Cc: Bapt <bapt@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, cvs-doc@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com>, doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook book.sgml Message-ID: <4DD3EAFD.20905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DD3E493.8010201@freebsd.org> References: <201105141806.p4EI6upK087278@repoman.freebsd.org> <4DCEEA98.4090300@FreeBSD.org> <800a75fbf37a5bf34858274adf2b5cb5.squirrel@mail.experts-exchange.com> <4DD3E493.8010201@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke ha scritto: > That makes sense, but given that we have other tools and sites that > provide port information, is it better to recommend the shorter COMMENT > that may not be sufficient to give a port intro, or should we opt for a > slightly longer string? How will pkgng handle this? Read it in this way: is it better to have a useless pkg_info COMMENT because it's truncated, or a nicer web page displaying ten additional characters and probably a link to the pkg-descr? IMHO if you are looking for a detailed description you have to look at pkg-descr in any way, 70 chars instead of 60 don't make a difference, but a truncated comment is like a 0-chars comment. This is my opinion of course. -- Alex Dupre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DD3EAFD.20905>