On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:44:48 +0100 Torfinn Ingolfsen <tin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier <conr...@cox.net> > wrote: > > > I've been thinking for a long time that we need a better way to do > > "make readmes", one that would be properly integrated into our > > ports Mk infrastructure, to take advantage of make's ability to > > recognize which files are up-to-date and which really do need > > rebuilding. > > > > I like to make sure my README.html files are all up-to-date after my > > nightly ports tree update, but with the current scheme, that means > > either rebuilding *all* of the files in the tree, or (as I'm doing > > at present) using some sort of "kludgey" (kludgy?) workaround. > > > > > So people are actually using the readme files? > Are many people using them? > I ask because I *never* use them (unless they are used by 'make > search'?), I always use freshports.org (BTW, thanks for an excellent > service!) when I need to find out anything about a port. > Well, in actual practice, it's true, I don't use them a *lot*, but I do use them from time to time when I'm looking for a new port to install for a certain purpose. It's nice to have up-to-date README.html files locally when the need arises. But they sure are expensive to maintain currently. -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
