Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:36:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Jason Nordwick <nordwick@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new ports Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980613083246.18341A-100000@james.hwcn.org> In-Reply-To: <3581FE5E.F05A47DE@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Jason Nordwick wrote: > Is this sufficient? Is there anything else that I should check? > I'll be happy to test some this weekend. No, although it is useful if you test it on -current when the submitter used -stable, or vice-a-versa. However, the port overall must agree with the whole of the handbook's documentation on porting. There are also a bunch of undocumented (in the handbook's section on ports, anyways) that the port should obey. As a minimum the port should follow the list of Do's and Don'ts. It really should be checked against the whole ports document. When you start checking the port against all the various undocumented rules, we'll save everyone a lot of trouble and just tell you to commit the dang thing yourself. :) -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980613083246.18341A-100000>