PORTDOCS in the Porter's Handbook
yar at comp.chem.msu.su
Sat Jun 19 19:51:03 GMT 2004
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;
Thank you for your comment, it has hit the mark!
More information about the freebsd-ports