Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:42:34 +0400 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [portmaster] navigation in the man page Message-ID: <868w456h1x.fsf@gmail.com> References: <86bp92i400.fsf@gmail.com> <4C69E304.7060302@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> - inconsistent in using terms (flags vs. options) > > Again, snarky; but I will take a look at making this usage more > consistent. Personally I have always used these terms interchangeably, > but I could have been wrong about it all this time. :) "The average user" may not be familiar `flag' and `option' describe same things in the context of running programs from command line. >> - being too verbose about port-related terms[2] >> >> [2] Like the one below >> >> [-R] -r name/glob of port directory in /var/db/pkg >> >> Why not use `origin' or `pkg-name' term from pkg_info(1)? WTF is >> `port directory in /var/db/pkg' ? Only *package* directories lie >> there. > > Well origin is obviously wrong, however my attempt here is to convey > the information necessary to users who are not at all familiar with > the port system internals. While it may not be the proper shorthand > term, anyone who isn't clear about what I mean can easily look in > /var/db/pkg, see the names of the directories there, and come to the > right conclusion about what they need to specify on the command line. You can define the meaning of a term in an option description and common terms can be put into DESCRIPTION section. Such terms can be described more verbosely in order to not confuse new users as well as experienced ones. No need to clutter usage line of an option. Besides, without any kind of brackets it's a bit confusing whether those words separated by spaces are treated as several arguments or as one. >> On the side, I still can't find how to shut up portmaster from asking me >> about +IGNOREME ports. > > The design is that if portmaster encounters a port with an +IGNOREME > file it will ask you, once and only once, under certain circumstances, > if you want to update it. My theory is that "the average user" is > rather likely to put an +IGNOREME file in a port, err, package, errr, > directory in /var/db/pkg and subsequently forget that it's there. If > portmaster is asking you more than once during the same run about a > port with an +IGNOREME file then please report that as a bug (here on > the list is fine), with specific instructions on how to reproduce it. Why not add smth like --no-confirm? I'm one of those "average users" that expects tools to have non-interactive mode, do its best with defaults and fail otherwise. > If you really really want portmaster to never prompt you about a port > you can create a pattern for it based on what portmaster does with the > -x option and put that in your portmaster rc file. PM_EXCL? It's not documented in portmaster(8) nor in sample config. Way to promote reading the code. ;)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?868w456h1x.fsf>