Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:39:44 -0800 From: bmah@acm.org (Bruce A. Mah) To: Alexey Zelkin <phantom@ark.cris.net> Cc: Valentino Vaschetto <logo@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <port> replacement Message-ID: <200202141639.g1EGdih21528@bmah.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20020214124806.A7765@ark.cris.net> References: <20020213230809.I92878@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202131916220.9649-100000@wrath.forked.net> <20020214124806.A7765@ark.cris.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If memory serves me right, Alexey Zelkin wrote: > > > We can always make these entities, something like > > > > > > &pkg.net.cvsup; > > > > Deadly. If we did it this way, would'nt we have to add new entities every > > time we get a new port? Even though it's easier than using the <filename> > > tag, I think that it would be a hassle to keep up to date with all the new > > ports. > > I think having entities is a best solution since it will allow us > to spend less efforts to maintain adding/removal/changes in ports > collection (just comment out entity and pass 'make lint' thru > doc/ tree to find all occurences. find and grep are more expensive) Just what we need...another 6000 entities. :-p (find and grep are more expensive than make lint?!?) Before we bikeshed this whole thing to death, can we at least get rid of the <port> tag first, as there's essentially no argument on this point? Cheers, Bruce. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202141639.g1EGdih21528>