Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:22:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk updates Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.980816110755.26276A-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980815221021.1275H-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Bill Fumerola wrote: > > > > If you're volunteering to write a page (even a text, non-html > > > page) that lists the latest changes to bsd.port.mk, _AND_ to keep > > > that page up-to-date, I'll happily find a place for it. > > > > I'd volunteer to work on that and/or a NICE AND COMPLETE explanation of > > all the (many, poorly documented) Makefile options for ports, given that > > One of the frequent ports committers could probably comment on > what would be most useful (steve, mph, vanilla?). > > You have no idea how much I would like to take porting.sgml, > rip it up, rewrite, and put it back together into a nice, much > sexier, document... > > I'm not entirely sure how porting.sgml should be rewritten (if I > was sure, doing the rewriting would be easy! :), but I am sure > that a reference document such as you suggest would be useful. perhaps porting.sgml should be 'portal' (to borrow the latest buzzword) into other documents the go futher indepth such as the ones you list below. > Some of the variables that ports _can_ use are undocumented > intentionally. If you do write such a document, be careful to > avoid documenting these variables. There is, of course, no > agreement on what these variables are, so use your judgement. :) undocumented intentionally? explain further. > A reference might be better written in the form of > > - Ports that require uids > [stuff ripped from porting.sgml inserted here, after > rewriting, etc. :-] > - Ports that need PATCHFILES from different PATCH_SITES > [more writing] > - Ports that need to use /var/run > [...] > - Ports that need different PLISTs depending on their configuartion > [...] > - Ports that can't fetch their distfile automatically > [...] > - Ports that supply "info" documentation > [rip and rewrite from porting.sgml] > - Ports that add a module to Apache > [...] > - Use your imagination here... :-) > > > they were cvsup'able so multiple people could work on it. I'd be willing > > to head up or at least start something like that. > > Well, obviously I can't promise that any other people would work > on it. Putting it under the main FreeBSD cvs tree is no problem. > In fact, we generally prefer that. In case you haven't noticed, > we have enough trouble keeping our existing documentation > up-to-date, so at least a good-faith agreement to try and save if > from becoming just more misleading and wrong documentation would > be nice... Once again, as someone who had to wade through the mucky waters of bsd.port.mk, a description, I think would be better for all. > An ideal submission would be in DocBook. :) LinuxDoc would > probably be converted to DocBook by the ever-energetic nik. :) > A plain-text document is probably not a problem, either, but > couldn't be added to the handbook. I'd be willing to learn on company time. - bill fumerola [root/billf]@chc-chimes.com - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800)252.2421 x128 / bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - BF1560 - "Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities" -Lord Dunsany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.980816110755.26276A-100000>