Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:20:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27807: [PATCH] The port variables for optional packages aren't documented Message-ID: <200106011820.f51IK2H83215@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/27807; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> Cc: mwm@mired.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27807: [PATCH] The port variables for optional packages aren't documented Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:14:07 -0500 Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> types: > mwm@mired.org writes: > > Apply the attached patch to the porters handbook. WITHOUT_X has > > already been documented in the make.conf man page. WITH/WITHOUT_* for > > the WANT/HAVE variables should be done after this patch is > > committed. And yes, I'm willing to write that up as well. > I hope you don't intend on documenting (WANT|HAVE)_* in the man page; > they certainly don't belong there. Sticking them along side the > discussion of dependencies or some such in the Porter's Handbook would > be great, though. Nope, I wasn't going to do that. What would go in the man page would be the WITH/WITHOUT variables. > > + <para>The easiest of these to use is > > + <literal>WITHOUT_X</literal>. If the port can be built both > Isn't WITHOUT_X a make variable? I.e., shouldn't it be marked up with > <makevar>? Yes, it is, and yes, it should. I should have caught that when I proofed it. Thanx, <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106011820.f51IK2H83215>