Perhaps it is a good idea to document "make makesum" in the manual page.
makeplist is not documented either. I think we could rename this PR to review and add all missing targets.
I would expect ports(7) to be more for end users, and not port maintainers, i.e. you don't usually use makesum or makeplist targets while installing/updating ports.
(In reply to Yuri Pankov from comment #2)
I agree. Maybe we can review ports(7) and move all the port maintainer-related bits to the handbooks. When it comes to makesum and makeplist though, I'd actually keep add them to ports(7) anyway. Users often modify ports a bit when they try things out, on more often than never they edit distinfo manually.
Currently I don't see any developer target in there, only a mention of developer documentation at the bottom; everything in there is targetting end users (listing dependencies, installing/removing ports).
Wonder if we could instead add a link at the top, "For developer's targets, variables, or general documentation in case you want to *modify* port, please see <porters-handbook-link>". 'makesum' target is dependent on other things that are better be known even if you just try things out :)
Maybe the only case for makesum is when upstream is known for silently re-rolling distribution files without bumping the version. End users might want to just "make makesum" and continue with their lives :-)
Adding a pointer to the PHB looks like a good option here. Otherwise it would be more consistent to add something like "The following targets are meant for port developers:"