From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jun 3 18:51: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n37.san.rr.com (dt051n37.san.rr.com [204.210.32.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B68837B401 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@DougBarton.net) Received: from DougBarton.net (master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n37.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11764; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:51:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@DougBarton.net) Message-ID: <3B1AE986.1E2EAE88@DougBarton.net> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:51:02 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Meyer Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X References: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mike Meyer wrote: > > Various ports test NO_X, WITHOUT_X, or WITHOUT_X11 to see if they > should build without X support. The make.conf man page was recently > changed to indicate to users that WITHOUT_X is the variable to use for > that. My searches of the -ports archive didn't turn up anything, so > there may not have been sufficient discussion of it before this > happened. If we're going to change anyway I'd like to suggest that we change to variable names that are more self evident. How about something like NO_X_BASE and NO_X_PORTS? Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message