Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:19:34 +0000 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: <filename> -> <port> Message-ID: <20020102111934.B70243@clan.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg>; from roam@ringlet.net on Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:09:26AM %2B0200 References: <20011231100926.A3512@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> Is there a reason to use <filename> instead of <port> when referring
> to a port? If not, how about the attached patch?
I'm still uneasy about <port>. Apart from the ambiguous name:
<para>The webserver listens on port <port>80</port>.</para>
<para>The printer is connected to <port>lpt0</port>.</para>
the rest of the world prefers the 'package' nomenclature.
I'd be more comfortable with a=20
<filename class=3D"port">
or
<filename class=3D"package">
mechanism. Or perhaps
<package category=3D"archivers">unzip</package>
or even
<command package=3D"archivers/unzip">unzip</package>
N
--=20
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/
FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/
--- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 ---
--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjwy7MUACgkQk6gHZCw343UMegCfZiGiEIBcIGo42TNp/UmxX4KV
sfcAn2S/VmGf0DAqw63Tr89uRyhrNk+Z
=5uLA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--
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?20020102111934.B70243>