Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:23:03 -0600 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@mu.org> To: alex@cichlids.cichlids.com, Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com>, ports@freebsd.org, knu@freebsd.org, ve@sci.fi Subject: Re: WITH_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <20010323192303.V2567@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010323175351.A2279@cichlids.cichlids.com>; from alex@cichlids.cichlids.com on Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:53:51PM %2B0100 References: <200103212041.f2LKfB161374@misha.privatelabs.com> <20010323175351.A2279@cichlids.cichlids.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:53:51PM +0100, Alexander Langer wrote:
> Thus spake Mikhail Teterin (mi@misha.privatelabs.com):
>
> > .ifndef NO_X
> > WITH_X11= YES
> > .endif
> > or the other way around?
>
> No.
> NO_X forbids use of X while WITH_X11 enables it explicitely.
> There still is a "I just don't care" case.
agreed.
--
Bill Fumerola - security yahoo / Yahoo! inc.
- fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010323192303.V2567>