From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Feb 7 14:29:00 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD575AA04D9 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 14:29:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC7FB1F30 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 14:29:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B72143C1C; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 08:28:57 -0600 (CST) To: FreeBSD Mailing List , Kevin Oberman From: John Marino Subject: Removing documentation (was: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes) X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:28:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:29:01 -0000 > I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems > running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of > portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion. Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) disclaimer: I have obvious bias, I wrote Synth and one *specific* goal to was address claims like yours above, meaning that I wanted to remove that excuse as a valid reason to leave portmaster in the status quo. > I believe that the issue of it having a man page is completely irrelevant. That was to counter the claim that portmaster "needs" documentation. The point is that it *has* documentation. > The handbook covers pkg, portsnap, and freebsd-update, all of which have > very comprehensive man pages and are covered in the handbook because man > pages and the handbook serve very different purposes. Every port should > have a man page, though I understand why many lack one and ports that > support the basic management of a system belong in the handbook. When > multiple and popular tools are available for the same job, it would be good > to summarize any different capabilities that might make one preferred over > another. That's not the point. The point is a sanctioned "official" tool is not maintained and my position is that is UNACCEPTABLE. To be in the handbook it must be a hard requirement to be *ADEQUATELY* maintained. I do not believe that requirement is being met today. John