Hi Vadim, Vadim Zhukov wrote on Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 08:00:22AM +0300: > Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2015-04-18 Sat 16:21 PM |, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>> If the ports infrastructure manual pages were simply part of a package >>> that is neccessary for building ports, then the manuals could show up >>> in /usr/local/man, removing the need for any configuration. >> "A package that is necessary for building ports" >> slight chicken and egg problem here. > Being more precise, it's needed for creating and further editing of ports, > but not for building them. > > And following "run pkg_add ports-man to start hacking ports" is even easier > than "edit /etc/man.conf", especially in a long run (no merging is needed). Wait, having tools and documentation in disparate places doesn't sound like a great idea to me - so please don't leave the tools in /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin while moving the docs to a package. My favourite scheme would be to have everything required for *building* ports in base, just like pkg_create(1). I don't think espie@ needs to fear obstruction or bikesheds - if people own parts of base, nobody prevents them from doing their job there. Nobody pesters espie@ about the details of what he does in pkg_create(1) either. And regarding syncing, well, it can already easily happen now that your ports build crashes because your base is outdated. Such a plan would eventually move at least bsd.port.mk to /usr/share/mk, and maybe some other minor parts, too. In the long term, i would even consider it nice to have the ports maintenance tools in base - they are not large but needed by more than half the developers, which would be the perfect argument for inclusion into base of any other tool. Until then, having the ports maintenance tools in a package sounds better than having them scattered around /usr/ports/infrastructure, various packages, and the web. But please, always keep code and docs together! I suspect that moving the ports maintenance tools to base could go along with some cleanup. I'm not quite sure, but part of what i see in /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/ doesn't seem very actively maintained. > The only exception is, well, ports.7 which, obviously, should live > under /usr/share/man and contain the instruction above. Also, please refrain from removing anything from base that is already nicely integrated. That would just be the wrong direction in the long term. > Does it look like a plan, or is it too naive and stupid? :) I for one would love if you could slowly and carefully start working on these issues, of course closely coordinating with the chief ports tree maintainers. Yours, Ingo
