Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:23:50 -0500
From:      "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
To:        mldodson@comcast.net
Cc:        Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu>
Subject:   Re: Suggested improvements for ports
Message-ID:  <4788F7A6.9040001@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4788EAD9.5040202@comcast.net>
References:  <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <4788D0E6.7080007@gmx.de> <4788D6E8.2060902@gmail.com> <4788EAD9.5040202@comcast.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

M. L. Dodson wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>>> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>>> 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config
>>>> for the options that you want.  So, when you select sasl in
>>>> postfix, you never get the chance to check the saslauthd
>>>> option, for example.
>>> As the ports man page states:
>>>
>>> # make config-recursive
>>>
>>> does what you want. It's surprising how often people claim this
>>>  feature is missing, even though it has been there ever since I
>>>  started using FreeBSD.
>>>
>>
>> Not completely correct for reasons given in
>> http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf
>>
>>
>> - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools.
>> http://www.flosoft-systems.com Developer, not business, friendly.
>>
>
> That is completely off the point of the email to which you are
> responding.
I think there is a problem with your threading system (note the OP
contacted me privately before posting about learning more about ports
2.0 and thus by definition is interested in any changes it might have
in store)

> That is the way we do it in the FBSD ports system.

No it was an attempt to resolve issues that are either a) not well
documented in the current system and/or are not possible with it b)
thus by definition within the intresest of the ports 2.0 effort.
> We all know, as you have said ad nauseam, you believe the ports
> system is broken because of that.  Why must you always hijack
> threads to make points for your agenda?
>
> Bud Dodson
>
> PS, I will refuse respond to the (almost guaranteed) passive
> aggressive flame you will use to respond to this post.

You don't have to respond to it because you claimof  hijacking is
incorrect (1. I responded to OP saying that this is on the ports 2.0
agenda and thus need not be debated or rehashed publically... 2. Out
of x replies I have offered only 3 sentences all of them where to
point to primary sources)/


- --
Aryeh M. Friedman
FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools.
http://www.flosoft-systems.com
Developer, not business, friendly.

"Free software != Free beer"

Blog:
 
http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/index.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHiPemjRvRjGmHRgQRAi1uAJ930masqhD7rxBZkpW73oDB+jFH+ACgjwlR
hHAtb7TVMTshLLA1dJvJ7k8=
=QaGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4788F7A6.9040001>