yes do that please

I don't like the idea of a separated package for manuals

Fix typo

Address latest @mat concerned

Avoid intermediary variable

Properly test empty variable

Remove GNUism

It allows INSTALL_AS_USER to work at the package level

Fix ldconfig-linux

Actually use the library

What I think is the matter of how the base system is turned into packages should be a project decision, and yes I would like to see some broader discussion about before adding all of this in the ports tree. Further more it adds lots of maintenance to portmgr to the tree. if you were to compare it with something it would be comparable to the base/ fake category. And I as the one who added it in the ports would gladly remove it if that is what is proposed. With a side note on this case, that it was added to avoid duplication with other binutils and gcc ports in the first place and as always been thought to only concern those 2 things.

Just put the patch in the files directory if it does not exists create it and you won't need the EXTRA_PATCHES entry

Sorry I missed that one.

I think that bit of the man page should be rewritten, with an exact example of what it does, because if someone like me that writes a lot of make(1) code do not understand what it does, I do feel we should not be using it...

it is more

Small fixed

pkg 1.11 being out I think we can probably commit that one?

I don't think it belongs to the ports tree at all, everything in the ports should should be verifiable via the ports tree. If one want to bring in the ability to build this kind of base package, the right way to go, it so work on the framework to enable the use some kind of overlays. There has been some work in progress in that area, but nothing has been committed yet.

Keep the exit 1 which should have remained :)

let's wait that the working group at bsdcan happened before getting any further on this imho