Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 11:54:41 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Kevin Phair <phair.kevin@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How are ports built now Message-ID: <F56C5A11AEC7DEB52D196A24@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406081031580.10900@wonkity.com> References: <FF2053FA1B75B463D14C7152@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <20140607202241.GA59544@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> <F15EFF113780A8A629B44407@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <53938114.9060303@gmx.de> <BC88D0CCB9E6BF97D053661F@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <5394837D.80901@gmail.com> <DA290E6DF4F0C04D8CDABC77@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406081031580.10900@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On June 8, 2014 at 10:32:33 AM -0600 Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Paul Schmehl wrote: > >> Yes, I do have a few ports with none-default options. The problem is, >> they're critical ports (like apache22). > > At present, these have to be built from ports. Long-term, there is a > plan to have multiple packages for ports with options. > It seems like a completely unworkable solution to me. For example, say you have a port with 10 options. Imagine how many different binaries you would have to have to cover every possible combination of selected options. It would take a huge amount of storage Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F56C5A11AEC7DEB52D196A24>