[Bug 210339] change entry on consultting services pages
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210339 --- Comment #1 from commit-h...@freebsd.org --- A commit references this bug: Author: bcr Date: Wed Aug 17 10:21:39 UTC 2016 New revision: 49300 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/doc/49300 Log: Update the entry for Omniscient as per their request. PR: 210339 Submitted by: kov...@omniscient.com Sponsored by: BSDCam Devsummit Changes: head/share/xml/commercial.consult.xml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[Bug 210339] change entry on consultting services pages
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210339 Benedict Reuschling changed: What|Removed |Added Status|New |Closed Resolution|--- |FIXED CC||b...@freebsd.org --- Comment #2 from Benedict Reuschling --- I've updated the entry. PR closed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[Bug 211948] FreeBSD Man Pages: MAKE(1)
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211948 Bug ID: 211948 Summary: FreeBSD Man Pages: MAKE(1) Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: Documentation Assignee: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Reporter: djen...@macsales.com Created attachment 173791 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=173791&action=edit A Copy of the Man Page with all my corrections I originally sent the following as an email to freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org and then sent the attachment separately and was told I should submit this here. So I hope this is the proper way to submit this kind of thing if not please give me the procedural URL so that I can make sure that I submit future corrections in the most appropriate manner. Document: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=make&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+10.3-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html The following is a break out of the issues that I found within this document I have outlined the issues below and I have attached a MSWord Document of my finished version that I am using for myself. I also tried to include just enough of the surrounding text to help pinpoint the issue and the issues are top to bottom as they were found in the document when read from top to bottom. Final Note: I tried to catch as much as possible but I might have missed a few things. Legend: Where >> appears it points to where the problem resides and is followed eventually by: pointing to the proposed correction that needs to be made. Note not all corrections are presented this way and some are posted as questions. ** Issues Begin ** -d [-]flags >> Turn on debugging, and specify which portions of make are to >> print debugging information. Unless the flags are preceded by >> `-' they are added to the MAKEFLAGS environment variable and will These turn on debugging and specify the portions that make is to print debugging information for. Unless the flags are preceded by "-" they are added to the MAKEFLAGS environment variable and will On the last line other than replacing the single quotes with double quotes it does not mention what will happen if the flag is proceeded by "-" and/or under what circumstances you would want to do this. I mean if you did not want the flag to be used would you simply not add it to the list ?? So what is the significance of the "-" why use it at all ?? -j max_jobs >> scripts which change directories on each command invocation and scripts that change directories on each command invocation and -N Display the commands which would have been executed, but do not Display the commands that would have been executed, but do not SHELL COMMANDS Makefiles should be written so that the mode of make operation does not >> change their behavior. For example, any command which needs to use change their behavior. For example, any command that needs to use MAKE The name that make was executed with (argv[0]). For com- patibility make also sets .MAKE with the same value. The preferred variable to use is the environment variable MAKE because it is more compatible with other versions of make and cannot be confused with the special target with the same name. Should not the "MAKE" be green and in italics ? Should there be a period (.MAKE) proceeding it as referenced in part of the description for it (which is to say — there are two instances where MAKE is missing a preceding period) ? .MAKE.ALWAYS_PASS_JOB_QUEUE Tells make whether to pass the descriptors of the job token queue even if the target is not tagged with .MAKE >> The default is `yes' for backwards compatability with FreeBSD 9.0 and earlier. The default is `yes' for backwards compatibility with MAKEFLAGSThe environment variable `MAKEFLAGS' may contain anything >> that may be specified on make's command line. Anything >> specified on make's command line is appended to the >> `MAKEFLAGS' variable which is then entered into the envi- >> ronment for all programs which make executes. Should not the "MAKEFLAGS" be green and in italics ? that may be specified on the make's command line. Anything specified on the make's command line is appended to the `MAKEFLAGS' variable that is then entered into the envi- ronment for all programs that make executes. .MAKE.LEVEL The recursion depth of make. The initial instance of make will be 0, and an incremented value is put into the environment to be seen by the next generation. This allows tests lik
[Bug 211949] PMake - A Tutorial Chapter 2.5
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211949 Bug ID: 211949 Summary: PMake - A Tutorial Chapter 2.5 Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: Documentation Assignee: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Reporter: djen...@macsales.com This also effects the following webpage: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/pmake/parellelism.html I read the following paragraph and then printed the entire contents of 2.5 and had several other people read it and we all got the same general impression which I outline after displaying the paragraph in question: * There are several problems you are likely to encounter. One is that some makefiles (and programs) are written in such a way that it is impossible for two targets to be made at once. The program xstr, for example, always modifies the files strings and x.c. There is no way to change it. Thus you cannot run two of them at once without something being trashed. Similarly, if you have commands in the makefile that always send output to the same file, you will not be able to make more than one target at once unless you change the file you use. You can, for instance, add a to the end of the file name to tack on the process ID of the shell executing the command (each $$ expands to a single $, thus giving you the shell variable $$). Since only one shell is used for all the commands, you will get the same file name for each command in the script. * I am guessing what is being conveyed (or at least seems to be) is not the intent for when the above is read it sounds like the following occurs: 1) That if you have a multiple commands that create/utilize a filename these can only be run 1 at a time otherwise they will step on each other -- understood 2) However a possible work around is to take on to the end of the filename so that each file created gets its own unique Pid (or at least that is what it seems to imply anyway) -- aka here is a work around for the problem in item #1 3) However because PMake only operates under one shell the Pid will be the same for every process and as such all these filenames will still be the same. Synopsis: Here is a problem, here is a work-around to the problem, but the work-around to the problem will not work. If this not what is trying to be conveyed then it needs to be reworded in a manner to clarify what it is trying to say -- on the other hand if this is what it is trying to convey I have to ask -- Why include it at all since it just creates confusion ?? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[PATCH] Fix markup in sntp.8
Index: sntp.8 === --- sntp.8 (revision 303492) +++ sntp.8 (working copy) @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ more than enough for a unicast response. If \fBsntp\fP is only waiting for a broadcast response a longer timeout is likely needed. -.It Fl \-wait , " Fl \-no\-wait" +.It Fl \-wait , Fl \-no\-wait Wait for pending replies (if not setting the time). The \fIno\-wait\fP form will disable the option. This option is enabled by default. -- Steve ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
A Revolution in PDU Design
___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
A Revolution in PDU Design
___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
