Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:50:55 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PORTDOCS in the Porter's Handbook Message-ID: <20040619195055.GA93429@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <40D47E01.3080204@ciam.ru> References: <20040619122336.GA72313@comp.chem.msu.su> <40D47E01.3080204@ciam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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:
>
> >+
> >+ <para>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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040619195055.GA93429>