Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:26 -0400
From:      Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org>
To:        <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
Message-ID:  <4FC69352.4000702@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org>	<4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> would only cause confusion.
> I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want
> these features are building specialized systems and they know very
> well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be
> desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for,
> say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I
> suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port.
> -- 
for our commercial systems, we don't install man, docs, examples.
and, I would suspect that I would be a little peeved if next time I 
recompile all the ports, I had to stop and hit 'WITHOUT_PORTDOCS, 
WITHOUT_PORTEXAMPLES' on every port.

Upward compatibility folks, if at all possible.


-- 
Michael Scheidell, CTO
 >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC69352.4000702>