Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:00:47 -0400 From: "Frank J. Laszlo" <laszlof@freebsd.org> To: Joe <joeb_722@comclark.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Janne Snabb <snabb@epipe.com> Subject: Re: [new port] usage of shar command Message-ID: <sig.98198ff610.4C4832EF.1080104@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C465E14.1060300@comclark.com> References: <4C42CFDA.3040409@comclark.com> <4C42D292.208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4C4388D2.30200@comclark.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007190216290.9805@tiktik.epipe.com> <20100720190602.GA32624@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007201343310.1689@qbhto.arg> <4C465E14.1060300@comclark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe wrote: > The text as its currently exists is a long way from being clear to a > first timer. And I am talking about the new change that just went in. > > "shar `find port_dir` (note the backticks)", > > or > > "shar $(find port_dir)" > > both address the problem nicely. > > By all means go and make the correction. > The solution you've provided is not portable across shells. Also, I believe its safe to expect port developers to be at least somewhat familiar with shell scripting basics. There are other ways to contribute to the project that do not require such skills, but if we want to increase the overall quality of ports as well as existing PR's, we need to set some kind of standard. After all, it only wastes the time of the volunteers who commit the thousands of PRs when they receive poorly written ports, updates, etc. I'm not trying to attack the OP, but I wanted to voice my objection for dumbing down the handbook to the point that a 3 year old could figure it out. Regards, Frank Laszlo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?sig.98198ff610.4C4832EF.1080104>