From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun  2 20:16:26 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F649106566C;
	Sat,  2 Jun 2012 20:16:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC214151577;
	Sat,  2 Jun 2012 20:16:25 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4FCA7498.6050501@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:16:24 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
	rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, 
	Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org>
	<4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org>
	<CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj+L9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FC69352.4000702@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120530214803.GD85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<20120601191331.GR10094@acme.spoerlein.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120601191331.GR10094@acme.spoerlein.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:16:26 -0000

On 6/1/2012 12:13 PM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of
> the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to
> escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a
> usecase for them?

I don't need the !English language support offered by NLS/gettext, so
prefer not to have the extra space consumed on my hard drives whenever
possible. Is anything in software ever truly a 100% solution? That said,
I agree that the default should be "ON" for the purpose of package
building, and if the whole knob went away I wouldn't lose sleep.

I don't use NOPORTDOCS personally, but I can see the use case for it,
and don't mind putting in the effort to support it in my ports.

hth,

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection