On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:16:47 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Lambermont) wrote:
> Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote: > > ... > >>>> On 10/27/06, Christopher Boumenot wrote: > >>>>> Every time I upgrade a port I am usually left wondering what > >>>>> changed. > ... > > The problem with the OP's work is that some submitters/commiters > > think that the CVS commit message should document the _port_ > > changes while others think it should also document (or at least > > provide pointers) to the changes in the software itself (I fall in > > the second category). Since we don't have a standard for this, > > relaying only on the CVS logs might drive one into nasty problems. > > But it is much better than what we have now (nothing) and I think that > having a system like what Christopher proposed probably leads to > establishing a standard (preferably of the second category :) . Christopher's work is indeed valuable and I should have mentioned this in my first post :( I'm afraid of a partial solution because one tends to relay (only) on it and, since it partial, tends nt to check the vendor site, README, CHANGES or UPDATING included in the tarbal, etc. A similar thing drives me mad each time I install a new machine and I discover I have to recurse in the dependency tree of the ports I need because some of them don't have OPTIONS. > If the information is easily available I think it will be used. One has to be optimistic about it, albeit the opposite example provided by people not reading UPDATING ;-) -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #138: BNC (brain not connected)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
