From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 6 13:51:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDD437B4; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A5816FD; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2633438BE; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:50:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52F39326.2040201@marino.st> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:50:30 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marino@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has NO_MANCOMPRESS been silently depreciated? References: <20140206125459.GA45474@titania.njm.me.uk> <52F388EE.30609@marino.st> <20140206133159.GB45474@titania.njm.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140206133159.GB45474@titania.njm.me.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:51:03 -0000 On 2/6/2014 14:31, N.J. Mann wrote: >> I don't believe it was ever a user variable. > It was and still is for the base system - this machine was updated to > 8-STABLE r261161 ten days ago and all base manual pages are > uncompressed. okay, that's right. It's a case where ports honored a base variable and probably should have created their own version instead. When all the ports are staged, the man page variables will be unrecognized. >> Anyway, yes, it doesn't do anything on staged ports and it was "silently >> removed" because it was for port maintainers only, not users. (subject > It _is_ a user, well administrator really, setting. Please unremove it. Not my call, but I can pretty much guarantee that won't happen. Man pages are automatically handled in stage, and all of them are marked compressed in the internal plist. You are asking for an infrastructure change. We don't even know why it's important (why can't man pages be compressed?) John