Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:50:41 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hi Message-ID: <20090223195041.GC58188@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <87mycd847c.fsf@kobe.laptop> References: <9ef7e7380902220154t74657d52uc9497c77672b79f8@mail.gmail.com> <9a52b1190902220711u65e38320t97ca56547bef246d@mail.gmail.com> <87ljryccm0.fsf@kobe.laptop> <49a20440.oqh9j8d04xp6dYo8%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <87mycd847c.fsf@kobe.laptop>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:15:35PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > Documenting such local 'hacks' in the Handbook is a bit like rubber > stamping them with the official 'recommended by FreeBSD' seal of > approval. I am not sure I would like that a lot. Serious security > problems may exist in stale, unmaintained ports. It would be a bit > bad to make it sound like the entire FreeBSD project approves and even > recommends this sort of thing. I can see both sides of this argument. Maybe we need to split up FreeBSD documentation into two domains, similarly to the way FreeBSD software is split into two domains (core and ports) -- and thus have a place outside the FreeBSD handbook for the same, more-than-professional quality of documentation, but covering things we wouldn't be comfortable putting in the FreeBSD Handbook itself. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Doug Linder: "A good programmer is someone who always looks both ways before crossing a one-way street." [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkmi/hEACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXgegCgqXKlkR58pwTzPkGAKQyEj19S pD0AnitXd1okJ9RJVEFNxEzr8/ZeJAz+ =ej3S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090223195041.GC58188>