Looks good to me. Thanks!

In D10600#397152, @rockyhotas_post.com wrote:

In D10600#397149, @bcr wrote:

Yes, I've changed those.

Ok!

Now that the server part is about to be committed, do you also plan to do a section about the client? We have an article mentioning pam_ldap, but that article should either be reworked or put into the handbook altogether.

Yes, maybe you are referring to this section.

In D10600#397149, @bcr wrote:

Yes, I've changed those.

Yes, I've changed those.
Now that the server part is about to be committed, do you also plan to do a section about the client? We have an article mentioning pam_ldap, but that article should either be reworked or put into the handbook altogether.

In D10600#397141, @bcr wrote:

I think the patch is fine now. I'll see to it that it gets committed.
Thanks for your patience, Rocky Hotas.

I think the patch is fine now. I'll see to it that it gets committed.
Thanks for your patience, Rocky Hotas.

An update as regards the links issues. According to the Primer,

Also the second part has been completely revisited, to be more concise and more uniform to the original text.
Links to specific versions of the OS are still present. Please, refer to this previous comment for more details. How to fix this?

In D15350#356103, @bjk wrote:

In D15350#350715, @0mp wrote:

In D15350#348437, @bjk wrote:

Can you remind me why the .Dq Li is supposed to be better for inline commands?

As fair as I know we tend to use Dq Li instead of Nm make Cm build-like for inline commands. This is the style we follow in make.conf.5, src.conf.5, mqueufs.5. The Nm-based formatting is used in rc.conf.5 and find.1 on the other hand.

AFAICT, Dq Li is a more popular way to format commands.

The argument which is in favor of Dq Li is that we tend to make commands in Examples sections literal. We very rarely add Nm-like formatting to examples. Hence for the sake of consistency I'm proposing this change from Nm ... to Dq Li. 😄

What do you think about it, @bjk?

I see this is basically overcome by events, but thank you for the explanation/research -- your proposal seems reasonable to me.

In D15350#350715, @0mp wrote:

In D15350#348437, @bjk wrote:

Can you remind me why the .Dq Li is supposed to be better for inline commands?

As fair as I know we tend to use Dq Li instead of Nm make Cm build-like for inline commands. This is the style we follow in make.conf.5, src.conf.5, mqueufs.5. The Nm-based formatting is used in rc.conf.5 and find.1 on the other hand.

AFAICT, Dq Li is a more popular way to format commands.

The argument which is in favor of Dq Li is that we tend to make commands in Examples sections literal. We very rarely add Nm-like formatting to examples. Hence for the sake of consistency I'm proposing this change from Nm ... to Dq Li. 😄

What do you think about it, @bjk?

In D15350#348437, @bjk wrote:

Can you remind me why the .Dq Li is supposed to be better for inline commands?

Can you remind me why the .Dq Li is supposed to be better for inline commands?

Seems to have been accepted by a docs committer, so ok.

No idea what this is/does.

Reupload the patch using Arcanist.

Update the patch after recent changes to ports.7.

Reupload the patch, this time using arcanist as requested by @mat.

Could you use devel/arcanist, or at least generate a diff with full context like it does, with svn diff -x -U9999 or git diff -U9999.

In D10600#337622, @bcr wrote:

So, you're saying the we need testers for this configuration before we put it in the handbook as official instructions?

So, you're saying the we need testers for this configuration before we put it in the handbook as official instructions?

Applied all the modifications suggested by @bcr . Thank you!
The line-breaking were a first attempt to handle too-long lines, your solution is far better. A couple of comments: