svn commit: r303449 - head/Mk

Alberto Villa avilla at
Sun Sep 2 17:38:40 UTC 2012

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at> wrote:
> Good question.  I was hesitating about these two entries myself (whether to
> add parenthesis or not).  Eventually I decided that "Zeroconf support" is
> important feature enough to be outlined on its own, thus embracing actual
> implementation.  Similar logic I used to reword CD ripping support (I went
> even further with those three entries and dropped the "via" word as it
> seemed to make the phrases too heavy -- again, I understand that this is
> arguable).
> That said, it both cases that was my humble judgment based on how resulting
> descriptions sound to my ear, esp. in combinations with other OPTIONs (I
> studies a few hand-crafted examples before my commit).  I do not feel
> particularly strongly about it though; if folks think that all "via ..."
> parts should be treated equally, I would not object dropping emphasizing
> parenthesis.

Sounds good enough to me. I think that, as long as we manage to keep
descriptions consistent, some small variations are acceptable. I think
that a draft policy should be written, though, otherwise this whole
effort can turn into a real mess.
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer <avilla at>

More information about the svn-ports-all mailing list