Date: 26 Aug 1999 18:46:38 -0700 From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>, jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net>, current@freebsd.org, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Docs blows up make release Message-ID: <vqc3dx6uha9.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of "Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:27:05 -0700" References: <16783.935616425@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> * > This makes the ports tree have a dependency on the doc tree. I don't think * > this dependency should be there. It's bad enough that the src/ tree * > depends on doc/ (and the reason I want the documentation available as * > packages is to remove this dependency), having ports depend on the doc tree * > as well just means that when things go out of sync in doc for a while I get * > both you and Satoshi complaining at me, instead of just you :-) * * Erm, I think the ports tree is pretty darn loose about "dependencies" * since they're easily updated. Consider, for example, the fact that * some ports are dependent on the organization of binary tarballs over * at Netscape, or depend on WordPerfect's linux distribution RPM. Those * are some pretty heavy deps, and depending on something in our own doc * tree is certainly no worse. :) Yes. It shouldn't be hard to keep them synced, just like all the other ports that require the src tree to be around. Another advantage of having them in the ports tree is the build checking done at regular intervals. All the japanese/handbook stuff that's going on right now, these are the problems of the textproc/docbook* ports (missing files from PLIST, missing dependencies). People installing these from packages will see the exact same problem when they try to build the handbook (with or without the japanese/handbook port). * > Putting the package building rules in the doc/ Makefiles also (and this * > is just my personal opinion) makes it easier for people to see how the * > documentation packages are built. The ports Makefile structure is a * > marvel, but it contains a lot of code that's not necessary for building * > documentation packages (the "automagically add man pages to the PLIST * > i" code, for example) that makes it more difficult for the interested * > learner to browse and understand what's going on. * * Now this is a point which is more germin. So, you figure on making a * similar sort of "package" target under doc? I guess it really doesn't * matter where these things live, as long as it's still automated.. The chief concern I have is that this might result in yet another place you (Jordan) have to pick up stuff from before the release. Having these as ports will at least put them on the normal distribution channel along with all the other packages. Satoshi 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?vqc3dx6uha9.fsf>