Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:12:40 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports UPDATING ports/Tools/scripts README README.portsearch ports/Tools/scripts/modules buildmodules.pl Message-ID: <20111228011240.GA28560@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111227215454.GA81075@atarininja.org> References: <201112270332.pBR3WPZc022687@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111227142755.GA62363@atarininja.org> <CAF6rxgk0Ym3Aa%2By3x53MpYhSA1DOFJgLD6whmOA6i=sNKf32ew@mail.gmail.com> <20111227215454.GA81075@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:54:54PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote: > Normally there is a way to denote that the second instance of the word > "file" maps directly to the argument "file", usually via some kind of > typesetting. We don't have that possibility here, and there are clearly > at least two ways to interpret that sentence, so I'd suggest we come up > with an alternative way that makes it clear what is intended. > > -f index_file Use the index file, index_file, instead of > /usr/ports/INDEX. It still sounds weird being read and requires extra brain cycle to parse I'm afraid. So far, my winner is "Use an alternative index file instead of /usr/ports/INDEX" by skreuzer@ as perfectly readable and yet precise enough. ./danfe P.S. It seems we have The Week of Rainbow Bikesheds, woot!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111228011240.GA28560>