Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:54:21 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@csh.rit.edu> To: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATING - needs updating? Message-ID: <20051121215420.GA68639@csh.rit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200511211259.08340.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200511210839.56424.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20051121191335.GA56240@csh.rit.edu> <200511211259.08340.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:59:07PM -0800, Vizion wrote: > On Monday 21 November 2005 11:13, the author Wesley Shields contributed to > the dialogue on- > Re: UPDATING - needs updating?: > > >On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:39:55AM -0800, Vizion wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I have noticed that some earlier notices relating to some ports in > >> UPDATING appear as though they have been made out of data by newer notices > >> (e.g kde 20050804 seems to replace 20050324) and sometimes the > >> instructions conflict with one another. While I presuime the latest notice > >> always takes precedence I wonder if it would be possible to have notices > >> that are no longer current removed from UPDATING. > > > >I think this is probably a bad idea, simply from a historical > >perspective. If I wanted to chase down a bug that was available only > >for a specified time period I would like to know the corresponding > >UPDATING entries. > My focus comes from the primary purpose of UPDATING - to help check the best > way to update one's own ports(e.g the info on kde). Hence scanning a list of > ports affected by UPDATING at the time of updating does seem best suited for > that purpose and I wonder if the non current data might therefore be better > shifted to something like UPDATING.history to fulfill the very real need you > identify. I just remember the last entry I read. If you can't remember it you can manually mark it or write it down somewhere. I think forcing people to look in two different files is just making it more difficult than it needs to be. > >> I know I would find it useful to have an html version of UPDATING with an > >> index page by port with a link to the notices. How easy it would be to do > >> this automatically as UPDATING is upfated I do not know but I throw the > >> idea out there in case anyone feels like catching it. > > > >I believe freshports.org can do this already, though backwards. Rather > >than looking through UPDATING for links to the individual ports you can > >find the corresponding entries in the individual ports themselves (see > >www.freshports.org/x11/xterm as an example). > > Yep I am aware of that - but backwards is not what is needed in the contect od > using UPDATING when updating one's systems. I see the hml index list as > enabling one to scan the list of ports referred to on UPDATING and use that > index to extract the information relevant to one's own system(s). If nothing like this has been done already I'll work on a solution soon. I think it's a good idea, though it may be difficult to catch all the entries for a given port as there is no well defined syntax to follow in the updates. I'll have to think about this a bit more... -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051121215420.GA68639>