Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 15:17:31 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <20120512131731.GB3222@azathoth.lan> In-Reply-To: <4FAE047D.7040708@FreeBSD.org> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FAE047D.7040708@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:34:37AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: > Erwin Lansing ha scritto: > > portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the por= ts to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. >=20 > Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I= =20 > think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only= =20 > by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports=20 > should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=3DNLS. Is it correct? You are right the documentation is not clear concerning that point. In this implementation option is enforced at all, only default value are se= t by the bsd.options.mk which are DOCS and NLS. crees can you fix that part of the doc? the infomation I sent to you first weren't clear about it, sorry. So currently DOCS and NLS are set on if they are defined by the maintainer and only if they are defined by the maintainer. So no change expected at all from the current defaults. Bapt --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk+uYusACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez7cACglsZvKyA5QyBMAvOm/bt9Afb4 TuIAoL4ZDvqNFBJU2zNcnI7wk9dpV77e =pj0g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120512131731.GB3222>