On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:58:40AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> [Please keep me as one of the explicit recipients of this email.  

> > Removing *.TXT files also makes some difficulties when ordinally "make
> > buildworld/installworld" users want to know what changes are made
> > (they should change their CVSup configulation file, checkout doc if
> > the repository is CVSuped, install DocBook via ports, and run make(1)
> > to get a plaintext of release notes).
> I think the only recurring cost that people are going to have to do is
> to keep a reasonably current copy of doc/.  Building the docproj port is

Reasonably current effectively means "not current" . Aka out of date.

> Umm, no, it's not just like the current doc distribution.  If you build
> a release with NODOC=YES, you don't get any rendition of the FAQ,
> Handbook, etc.  There's no *.TXT files to fall back on.
> Here's my thoughts...for the record, I'm weakly opposed to regen-ing
> *.TXT versions:  First, I don't want to bloat the repository with oodles
> of builds to the *.TXT files.  If we do this, it ought to be be fairly
> infrequently, like maybe once or twice a month.

Bad idea.. 

RELNOTES, HARDWARE etc are things that should be up to date. Not 
'a bit uptodate' or 'slightly outdated'.

I really would not like to see the idea being bloated by going this route.

If people think getting the Docbook infrastructure in place is too much
work/time they should accustom themselves to reading the raw Docboot source

> Like I said, I'm weakly opposed to doing this, but I'm also quite
> willing to be swayed.

Please don't be swayed.. ;)

|   / o / /  _           Arnhem, The Netherlands        email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte    Powered by FreeBSD/alpha       http://www.freebsd.org  

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to