Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:27:42 +0200 From: clutton <clutton@zoho.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shells/bash-static fails to package/deinstall cleanly Message-ID: <1388057262.3771.78.camel@eva02.mbsd> In-Reply-To: <52BC0A18.1080503@FreeBSD.org> References: <52BBC768.6010702@dougbarton.us> <1388043634.3771.31.camel@eva02.mbsd> <52BBE04D.4060708@dougbarton.us> <1388046987.3771.36.camel@eva02.mbsd> <1388051565.3771.59.camel@eva02.mbsd> <1388054443.3771.66.camel@eva02.mbsd> <52BC0A18.1080503@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 10:51 +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 26/12/2013 10:40, clutton wrote: > > The whole port because of STATIC option? > > It'll be better to move this thing to bash port and make it as an > > option. Like zsh maintainer did. > > It's already an option in the bash port. > > You seem somewhat unclear on the concept of slave ports and why they > should exist. The point here is so that users of binary packages can > jut type > > pkg install bash-static > > and get a statically linked version of bash. This is the principal > reason that slave ports exist: so that the same software will be built > with different sets of default options, either for end user convenience > or because some other port depends on having some specific combination > of options. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > I know why, I mean I understand the purpose. http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg52457.html I thought that after OPTIONS framework was introduced all -x11 and similar ports are legacy. Am I wrong?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1388057262.3771.78.camel>