Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:52:04 -0500 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: portmgr@freebsd.org, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <20010602125204.B65146@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20010602101544.A74982@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@freebsd.org on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 10:15:44AM -0700 References: <15127.61125.223478.210748@guru.mired.org> <20010602091237.B73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010602101544.A74982@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 10:15:44AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> Portsmgrs, when this last came up, people seemed to agree on
> "WITHOUT_X11" so I changed my ports to use that. Now it seems WITHOUT_X
> has gotten documented as the proper way.
Certainly I believe that NO_X is not appropriate, since other ports
and make.conf knobs are of the form {USE,WITH,WITHOUT}_<blah>
I have no real preference as to WITHOUT_X vs WITHOUT_X11, though given
the albeit remote possibility of an X12, I believe it makes more sense
to use WITHOUT_X, especially given the -doc activity you have mentioned.
So, my vote is for WITHOUT_X.
-aDe
--
Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.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?20010602125204.B65146>