Hi Jason, Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:01:50PM +0001: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:28:29AM +0000:
>>> ok, so perhaps the diff below will avoid future confusion. >> I agree with adding that information and don't strongly object >> to your wording, but given that fw_update(1) is just a wrapper >> around pkg_add(1), some might consider it slightly misleading: >> there is nothing wrong with using pkg_add(1) itself for updating >> firmwares, as long as you specify the right PKG_PATH and options. >>> +A separate utility, >>> +.Xr fw_update 1 , >>> +is used to update non-free firmware packages. >> Since non-free firmware packages are distributed via separate >> package repositories, the convenience wrapper >> .Xr fw_update 1 >> is normally used to update them. > hmm. i would argue that it's more rightly fw_update(8)'s place > to go into that level of detail, not pkg_add(1). The pkg_add(1) manual does talk about PKG_PATH later on, so mentioning that a specific class of packages has their own repository doesn't seem off-topic when specifically talking about those packages. Besides, when documenting one tool and pointing to another one, mentioning that the latter is just just a wrapper around the former wouldn't qualifiy as excessive detail in my book. But feel free to decide, lest the bikes get all soaked! Yours, Ingo
