A 1.4 release

[Mark Duling]

Juan Manuel Palacios <jmpp at macports.org> on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at
9:25 AM -0800 wrote:
>> modify installer README -
>> http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/11010
>
>	Could you please handle this one..? You should be able to commit to 
>base, or send me a patch if you'd like me to handle that last bit.

Ok, I'll try it within a few days.

>Varios documentation updates. Closes #4905, #6880 & #10840, while also
>adding some other local changes

Woot!  I thank you from the bottom of my anal-retentive heart that you've
closed these lingering doc tickets!
>
>
>> -And these I'll look at more closely soon and see if it is man pages 
>> thatneed updating or just web documentation, perhaps the latter.  I've
>not
>> looked closely at them yet.  Any opinions are welcome.
>> http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/8822
>
>	Totally website documentation... but unfortunately that's mostly a 
>blackhole at the moment for several reasons:
>
Yeah I agreee.
>
>> http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/10877
>>
>
>	As for this one: if a given port does not offer whatever functionality 
>is required by the user, the standard procedure should be to open a 
>trac ticket requesting an enhancement with the appropriate variant, 
>assigned to the port maintainer; reinstalling the port with the variant 
>once it's checking in should satisfy the demand. That should definitely 
>be documented somewhere, guide, wiki, both, but it doesn't seem like 
>man page thing to me.

Makes sense.
>
>> -This is the only one that I might have to defer this to after 1.4, 
>> though
>> I may be able to get it.  I want to try writing it in DocBook and
>> transforming to a manpage.  If I should do that can the source xml be
>> stored also for future revisions?  Or would that be a problem?
>
>> http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/5275
>
>	As I said in my comment to this, I don't see much added value to a 
>portindex(1) man page, users shouldn't see themselves in the need of 
>indexing manually. And those who do should probably be savvy enough to 
>figure stuff out on their own. I can't even find the draft I had for 
>that page ;-) I'll see about closing that ticket.

>
Here I was only referring to creating a man apge from scratch for #5275. 
Since you don't think it is necessary, then I'm just going to forget about
that.

>	Not at all! In fact, quite on the contrary, we can make room in svn 
>for just about anything we might need for future reference, certainly 
>including documentation. Before you start please do take a look at the 
>trunk/doc svn dir, the old guide xml files are there, they should serve 
>you to get started. Kudos to you if you plan to revive the guide 
>effort! I'm thinking a wiki oriented approach is preferable, though, so 
>maybe you could take what's there and use the contents to start 
>creating trac Wiki entries...? Just a thought...

I agree that the Wiki is preferred for the docs.  As I said, I was
thinking of a new man page.  I'd like to contribute to the reference docs,
but I need to come up with a structural concept for the docs in mind
before I could do that and I can't make promises here.  Then I and the
rest of us could throw stuff in the Wiki as we see fit.  But I don't know
if or when I'll come up with an organizing concept so I can't make
promises here.
>
>	So... If you can please draw up a work schedule and let me know what 
>you're planning on...? I don't think there are those many things left 
>to include for the 1.4 release.

I'll wait to see what others think of my new ideas for portfile.7.  Sorry,
the possible additions I have in mind for portfile.7 did not occur to me
until just now or I'd have done them before!

Mark