Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 20:18:33 -0400 From: Ernie Luzar <luzar722@gmail.com> To: freebsd-doc <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [Bug 219421] [patch] handbook jail chapter removing ezjail section Message-ID: <59237FD9.6000103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b67255cb-143b-302f-67f0-7d6a9aa01529@sentry.org> References: <bug-219421-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <b67255cb-143b-302f-67f0-7d6a9aa01529@sentry.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trev wrote: > bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote on 21/05/2017 03:57: >> Bug ID: 219421 >> Summary: [patch] handbook jail chapter removing ezjail >> > Product: Documentation >> Version: Latest >> Hardware: Any >> OS: Any >> Status: New >> Keywords: patch >> Severity: Affects Many People >> Priority: --- >> Component: Documentation >> Assignee: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org >> Reporter: qjail1@a1poweruser.com >> Keywords: patch >> >> Created attachment 182757 >> --> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=182757&action=edit >> handbook jail chapter diff file >> >> In the comments for PR # 218849 people voiced concerns that it is >> inappropriate for the handbook to devote a section on how to use a >> port. That information belongs in the ports own documentation. > > I had assumed that this was correct... the Handbook only dealt with > "base" and a ports section had inadvertently been included. Until today, > when I was looking at the mail section of the Handbook and came across > these sections devoted to "ports": > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/SMTP-Auth.html > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/mail-agents.html > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/mail-fetchmail.html > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/mail-procmail.html > > So, are all these sections to be removed also? Somehow I don't think so. > After review, I see these handbook links are totally different than the detailed step by step how-to ezjail section of the handbook. They are night and day different. It's not a question of providing names of ports that service a certain function. It's providing a whole section devoted to such in depth step by step instructions about a port. This gives the reader a implied endorsement of said port and the idea its the only solution. This is un-fair treatment of the other ports available as solutions for that same function. And more to the point this is the type of information that the port documentation it self should contain. When has it become the doc teams job to maintain a ports documentation? This is just so wrong on so many levels. I don't remember there being any open discussion about adding this type of section detailing ezjail usage before it was added to the handbook. It just showed up one day. I was not aware this is how major concept changes are made to the handbook. If the formal review process was done then please point me to it so I can understand the thinking back then that supported this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59237FD9.6000103>