Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 02:47:54 +0800 From: "Rong-en Fan" <grafan@gmail.com> To: eol1@yahoo.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OPTIONS improvement Message-ID: <6eb82e0704041147w294bb34wb58a80fc4cda0fa7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <419426.40563.qm@web51911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <6eb82e0704032301q5581fd9ew8b0a31aac1fdb52f@mail.gmail.com> <419426.40563.qm@web51911.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/5/07, Peter Thoenen <eol1@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > After pav@'s commit to bsd.port.mk, now you can test > > WITH/WITHOUT > > > > > freely with OPTIONS. > > I guess to ask the obvious question, as a low maintenance port > maintainer (e.g don't follow all the latest and greatest nitty gritty > details) exactly what does this do for me and why do I care (or want to > adopt my ports to use this) .. I don't exactly find "now you can test > WITH/WITHOUT freely with OPTIONS" self-evident. If you ever use OPTIONS in your port's Makefile, you should know that due to previous implementation you can only test WITHOUT_* for OPTIONS that is default on and vice versa. > As a general comment, I think this is also sorely lacking in most > "HEADS UP" port annoucements .. e.g. why do we care and what does it do > for us in layman terms. I will write more details next time :-) > > -Peter >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6eb82e0704041147w294bb34wb58a80fc4cda0fa7>