Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:12:44 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CFT] New dialog for ports Message-ID: <20130320141244.GP67352@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <3b3e70c0c550b64c4f295e0479d0e681.squirrel@mouf.net> References: <20130314095529.GH53963@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <51492152.2010709@FreeBSD.org> <20130320070957.GK67352@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <3b3e70c0c550b64c4f295e0479d0e681.squirrel@mouf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kOdvwer/5gjFgNo6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:07:15AM -0400, Steve Wills wrote: > > > > I wonder if it is worth to let the question to install dialog4ports. > > > > I mean dialog4ports being mandatory you should just be installed direct= ly > > doesn't it? > > > > anyone have an opinion about this? > > > > I will remove the question on 27/03 if I got more please do than please > > don't at > > that time. >=20 > The question does lead one to think it's optional. If it's not optional, > then there shouldn't be a prompt. I think it should be optional. IMHO, the > requirement being mandator violates POLA, as does the prompt. These are > questions that should have been answered before it was committed. >=20 > Steve >=20 >=20 Why would dialog4ports be optional, the dialog(1) from base isn't able to reflect what the new option framwork does, keeping it and both code to have both, looks like a non sense to me. Bapt --kOdvwer/5gjFgNo6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlFJw9wACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwYHgCfR7v8oWrRrDuSkg+bJOQEIUfB Jn8An2AI9Odty03b/hiAkNaJM0xIxiKL =ifGy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kOdvwer/5gjFgNo6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130320141244.GP67352>