Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:28:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/wine Makefile Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1009062015370.17560@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <4C85284D.8000707@FreeBSD.org> References: <201009061123.o86BNY5u061220@repoman.freebsd.org> <4C85284D.8000707@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Doug Barton wrote: >> Log: >> Explicitly configure using --without-xcomposite, --without-xinerama and >> --without-xrandr so that builds are more reproduciable and we avoi hidden >> dependencies when building outside of a minimal build environment, thus >> making packages more portable. > That sounds very reasonable. I'm just wondering if you could add OPTIONS > to enable those features however ... The short answer is: yes, based on concrete user feedback I have added and will continue to add OPTIONS. The longer answers is: Wine itself has 44 --enable/--disable knobs and I guess we do not want to have that many OPTIONS nor do we want to build it with the maximum number of features and thus dependencies. What I am trying to do is to have those features that are relevant for most users always built, those where I see little to no use always disabled, and those in between as OPTIONS. As I receive input and suggestions from users, I move things between those three categories, the most common, but not sole, move being the one from the disabled to the OPTIONS bucket. Does that sound like a reasonable approach? Now, for some reason in the last week or two I have received more suggestions on this front than the entire year before, so you'll see me and my tester busy for a few evenings. :-) Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LNX.2.00.1009062015370.17560>