From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 30 21:38:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233E51065670 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 21:38:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scheidell@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [204.89.241.253]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E578A8FC29 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 21:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [10.70.1.253]) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D29E621C0F for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: SpammerTrap(r) VPS-1500 2.18 at mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net Received: from USBCTDC001.secnap.com (usbctdc001.secnap.com [10.70.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B241F621C08 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FC69352.4000702@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:26 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell Organization: SECNAP Network Security Corp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:38:22 -0000 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