Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:19:52 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r318777 - head/audio/libvorbis Message-ID: <CADLo83_XYS9QW=bKn3Xd7Uhy%2BCFpzY-5X1bZJ6FdxMGbhkZhtg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130522192609.GA24645@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <201305221529.r4MFT9jr046442@svn.freebsd.org> <CADLo83_p=ZH8X7_tugsTc_B%2B4HGwD4arFNisUoshk98LMwpMTA@mail.gmail.com> <20130522192609.GA24645@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22 May 2013 20:26, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote: > Chris Rees: > >> > +OPTIONS_DEFINE= DOCS >> >> Please don't do this; no-one needs an OPTIONS dialog jumping up for >> something that should be set globally. >> >> You don't need DOCS, EXAMPLES, or NLS in OPTIONS_DEFINE if they're the only >> ones used by the port. > > There are plenty of ports with OPTIONS_DEFINE=DOCS and no further > options. I changed it (against my personal preference!), because > it looked like this was the new way. > > So what *is* the consensus now? > > Either way, the Porter's Handbook is vague. You are quite right. There is some discussion about whether to, or not, but the main suggestion is that docs that require *building* would probably benefit from this option. I have some time set aside soon to clarify some stuff in the PH, so I'd like to get some consensus about this. Personally I think adding DOCS to OPTIONS_DEFINE at all under most circumstances is a bad idea, but it appears I'm in a minority here. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_XYS9QW=bKn3Xd7Uhy%2BCFpzY-5X1bZJ6FdxMGbhkZhtg>