A new and better way to do "make readmes"?

Conrad J. Sabatier conrads at cox.net
Thu Feb 2 21:25:33 UTC 2012

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:44:48 +0100
Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads at cox.net>
> wrote:
> > I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do
> > "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our
> > ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to
> > recognize which files are up-to-date and which really do need
> > rebuilding.
> >
> > I like to make sure my README.html files are all up-to-date after my
> > nightly ports tree update, but with the current scheme, that means
> > either rebuilding *all* of the files in the tree, or (as I'm doing
> > at present) using some sort of "kludgey" (kludgy?) workaround.
> >
> >
> So people are actually using the readme files?
> Are many people using them?
> I ask because I *never* use them (unless they are used by 'make
> search'?), I always use freshports.org (BTW, thanks for an excellent
> service!) when I need to find out anything about a port.

Well, in actual practice, it's true, I don't use them a *lot*, but I do
use them from time to time when I'm looking for a new port to install
for a certain purpose.  It's nice to have up-to-date README.html files
locally when the need arises.  But they sure are expensive to maintain

Conrad J. Sabatier
conrads at cox.net

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list