cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook book.sgml

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On 5/18/11 11:51 AM, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Joe Marcus Clarke ha scritto:
>> That makes sense, but given that we have other tools and sites that
>> provide port information, is it better to recommend the shorter COMMENT
>> that may not be sufficient to give a port intro, or should we opt for a
>> slightly longer string?  How will pkgng handle this?
> 
> Read it in this way: is it better to have a useless pkg_info COMMENT
> because it's truncated, or a nicer web page displaying ten additional
> characters and probably a link to the pkg-descr? IMHO if you are looking
> for a detailed description you have to look at pkg-descr in any way, 70
> chars instead of 60 don't make a difference, but a truncated comment is
> like a 0-chars comment. This is my opinion of course.
> 

Yes, a detailed description requires pkg-descr regardless.  However, I
have frequently used those extra 10 characters to provide a meaningful
COMMENT.  Such a COMMENT may entice me to read pkg-descr.

It sounds like pkgng is going to be structured so that the COMMENT
length won't matter.  IF that is the case, I'm inclined to leave the 70
char recommendation as-is since, again, people have been basing COMMENT
on portlint.

Joe

-- 
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team	::	gnome at FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome