Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 14:25:07 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Cc: "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: please revert graphics/xfig r354029 Message-ID: <9CDB4176-0BDA-486F-9ACD-E7FBEA3986D9@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <slrnlon2j6.1t2a.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <20140531000800.GA57984@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5389D9B6.8030005@FreeBSD.org> <20140531143509.GA60572@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5389EE92.5070105@FreeBSD.org> <20140531150936.GA60696@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20140531173128.GA6980@lonesome.com> <slrnlon2j6.1t2a.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrot= e: >=20 > On 2014-05-31, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: >=20 >>> I forgot I had the DOCS option unset as it was unset ages ago >>> and updates have always worked. The question is "why are changes >>> to a port committed without proper testing?" Yes, "proper >>> testing" should include testing of the effects of (un)setting >>> individual Makefile options. >>=20 >> The number of combinations is huge. >>=20 >> It's just not feasible. >=20 > Which is a good argument that options should be minimized. Instead, > ports policy appears to be to make as many options as possible. :-( True. At least a subset should be marked as "must work".=20 Setting most options would be best.=20 >=20 > --=20 > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9CDB4176-0BDA-486F-9ACD-E7FBEA3986D9>