From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 19 19:51:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F3516A4CE for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:51:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D27943D1D for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:51:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5JJouYj095016; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:50:56 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i5JJouoY095015; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:50:56 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:50:55 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Sergey Matveychuk Message-ID: <20040619195055.GA93429@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20040619122336.GA72313@comp.chem.msu.su> <40D47E01.3080204@ciam.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40D47E01.3080204@ciam.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PORTDOCS in the Porter's Handbook X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:51:03 -0000 On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:55:13PM +0400, Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > >The neat PORTDOCS variable deserves more attention in > >the Porter's Handbook, doesn't it? > > > >Hope I got it right... Could anybody review the below > >patch? Thank you! > > Don't forget to send-pr it. Would you mind if, instead of filing a PR, I just commit the change as soon as we reach a consensus over it? :-) > Just one remark: > > >+ > >+ Recently a new feature was introduced to the ports framework > >+ in order to facilitate registering port documentation. Instead of > > I think the Porter's Handbook is not a diary and words like 'recently' > and 'a new feature' are not correct here. The text may be there for years. Frankly, such a thought crossed my mind, too. But in order to make a statement that will stand for ages, we must decide here first what is the status of the old and new ways for package listing doc files. Possible choices include: a) either of them may be used at porter's option; b) the old way is documented so that the audience can see how legacy ports work, but porters are encouraged to use the new way, PORTDOCS, when creating or updating ports; c) ... Thank you for your comment, it has hit the mark! -- Yar