From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 26 11:27:56 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1BF71B7
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sender1.zohomail.com (sender1.zohomail.com [72.5.230.95])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46701768
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; 
 h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version;
 b=BGC5FZw/OCbndIlZz2CJjvYNKORLObkj7hMhpHleSAIQ0NgQVekOb/7/gO+PA21Qlq0AHYO41AuC
 78cTlOO7c2a57+UXr0FcAA73V9qBFTz2ZrXYAg/Zkf/MmkbV8ZZO  
Received: from [10.1.2.6] (46.229.54.117 [46.229.54.117]) by mx.zohomail.com
 with SMTPS id 1388057272074243.1611623200838;
 Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:27:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: shells/bash-static fails to package/deinstall cleanly
From: clutton <clutton@zoho.com>
To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:27:42 +0200
Message-ID: <1388057262.3771.78.camel@eva02.mbsd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ZohoMail: Ss  SS_10 UW UB ZCF-710TPL UW UB  SGR3_1_26113_278
X-ZohoMail-Owner: <1388057262.3771.78.camel@eva02.mbsd>+zmo_0_<clutton@zoho.com>
X-ZohoMail-Sender: 46.229.54.117
X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 2
X-ZohoMailClient: External
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:27:56 -0000

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?