Re: [REQUEST] Portfolio Performance

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 7:42 PM Master One via ports <ports@freebsd.org>
wrote:

> Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm not a FreeBSD user yet, but just
> checking out the possibility to replace Arch Linux on my laptop.
>
> I know about the Porters Handbook, but I'm not a developer or
> programmer, so diving in that deep may not be an option for me (I
> possibly would if I could, but then it may be a question of available
> time to learn all that's necessary and actually do it).
>
> I thought maybe I can gain the interest of someone who is capable and
> would find use of that software for himself.
>
>
> On Sun, 2021-08-29 at 12:34 +1000, raf via ports wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 04:06:00AM +0200, Master One via freebsd-
> > ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Not an advert or SPAM, but indeed just a port request ;)
> > >
> > > Though not sure how this classifies as badly worded and how I
> > > should
> > > have written that request differently.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2021-08-28 at 15:41 -0700, Lee Brown wrote:
> > > > It's meant to be a port request, i.e. will somebody please port
> > > > this
> > > > to
> > > > FreeBSD, but badly worded.
> > > >
> > > > I marked it as SPAM before I saw the forum post where SirDice
> > > > pointed
> > > > them
> > > > to this ML.  So no, not just you :)
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 2:46 PM Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is it just me, or does this look suspiciously like an advert?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Dave
> >
> > I think it makes sense that a request for a new port
> > explain why the software is worth porting. I can also
> > imagine that it might be difficult to do this in a way
> > that doesn't sound like an advertisement for the
> > software. After all, the request is an attempt to
> > entice an existing porter to take on additional work.
> > That's inherently an attempt at persuasion.
> >
> > The porting documentation I've seen only covers
> > creating a new port, not asking someone else to do so,
> > or giving advice on how best to do that.
> >
> > I suppose the implicit recommendation is to learn about
> > FreeBSD porting, create the port, submit it, and hope
> > that it gets accepted:
> >
> >   https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/
> >
> > There's a big learning curve, but on the plus side,
> > once you've created your first port, it should be much
> > easier the next time. :-)
> >
> > cheers,
> > raf
>
>
>


Many years ago , I have sent a ( or many ) message(s) to some lists by
suggesting the following idea(s) separately or
combined ( I do not remember now correctly ) by saying ( approximately ) :


The Handbook is outside of the source tree and maintained as a SINGLE (
let's say ) file , for THREE releases .
Rules or explanations are separated by IF statements related to respective
covered releases .
When a new release is issued , ALL of the respective IF statements need to
be modified respectively .
I have been in the computing area since 1970  . To maintain such a handbook
structure over sliding releases correctly
is an ENORMOUS task , means it is NOT POSSIBLE . Then please move Handbook
into related source tree and maintain it
separately for each release . In the FreeBSD web site , display handbooks
and man pages with respect to releases .

Additionally , display the handbook and man pages like a blog system , each
part as a new page .
Link mailing lists subjects with these pages . When a user writes a comment
into a man or handbook page , send it to the mailing list .
In that way , threads will be attached to the related man page or handbook
page .
In messages , there is very valuable information , but these points are
lost in the current mailing list structure . If messages are
linked into respective pages , parts may be transmitted into the respective
pages and these improve it considerably .
In that way , related useful information is not lost and it will be used in
later accesses .


I am able to understand that dear FreeBSD maintainers are doing very good
jobs , but these are not sufficient to supply the most
efficient service .  The expectation is that "The best thing is to supply
such a service yourself ." .

A very good suggestion . But there is an important problem : It is
sometimes possible to generate a GOOD idea , but its implementation is
impossible for the idea generator to supply such a service due to LACK of
such knowledge .

A possible solution would be to supply such a solution by persons being
experts on such blog systems .

Missing part is this HELP structure .


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk