Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 01:07:48 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 227859] net/nncp docs do not build Message-ID: <bug-227859-7788-i4sTFHhEGX@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-227859-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-227859-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227859 --- Comment #9 from Sergey Matveev <stargrave@stargrave.org> --- (In reply to p5B2E9A8F from comment #8) * info is not a standard in FreeBSD, man is. This is FreeBSD project decision exclusively, but I obviously see that man pages could not be replacement for info, at least because they lack links support and searching through the whole NNCP-related documentation. It means degradation of documentation's functionality/abilities. So if I would create man pages, then I forced to support two formats simultaneously: info for search/links capabilities (and HTML version for the website), man for satisfying FreeBSD's wishes. Here I do not agree with FreeBSD's decision. I am not some kind of GNU-fan, actually I really like BSD-world in nearly all cases, except for man-pages instead of info * HTML requires web-browser to be viewed on. It gives ability to link documents together, but still no ability to search, for example, for some word/term through the whole NNCP-related documentation. It is still not superiour comparing to info. Moreover FreeBSD does not have even lynx installed by default -- so you are anyway forced to install an additional software to the base system for viewing either HTML or info. But! Info can be viewed with more/less/cat/vi -- of course without search/links-following capabilities, but at least it would be perfectly readable * I understand and agreed that ideally man-pages should also be created, because man is installed by default and it is standard in FreeBSD. But it requires too much time I can afford for supporting them up. If there will be some kind of texi2man producing good man pages output, then I will do it. But I do not know such utilities. So I am forced to do double work. I think that this is acceptable to provide not so perfect .info (because info-viewer is not installed in FreeBSD by default, but installed in GNU OSes as a rule), that anyway can be viewed with more/cat/etc, for saving huge quantity of time spent on rewriting documentation simultaneously on man-pages * I still do not understand who HTML documentation could be included in version 2. Either I miss something, or you are mistaken. Port patch from 2.0 to 3.0 is: https://reviews.freebsd.org/file/data/pb2p4qzrkaae5marbypv/PHID-FILE-732x4z= 3zsne7yevyduzb/file I see nothing related to HTML-files installation that was thrown out. As I remember -- there was no HTML installation at all So, shortly: * there were no HTML docs in version 2 of the port. Maybe I miss something * HTML instead of info -- no. Info is superiour. Both of those formats require additional software installation. HTML additionally to info -- makes no sense, as both requires additional software. Info could be viewed with more/cat/etc, so even without additional software * man-pages additionally to info -- would be nice, but requires writing documentation twice, in two different formats. Can not afford due to time --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-227859-7788-i4sTFHhEGX>