Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 22:44:12 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <CADLo83_wWz2-_dWkGuT-TSPkzoRbaL2RipP=%2B8xoGC8jqqfD8Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120512131731.GB3222@azathoth.lan> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FAE047D.7040708@FreeBSD.org> <20120512131731.GB3222@azathoth.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 May 2012 14:18, "Baptiste Daroussin" <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > > 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 ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework. > > > > Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I > > think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only > > by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports > > should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. 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 set 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. > Done. I'll get the final references to WITH_ etc converted as soon as I can. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_wWz2-_dWkGuT-TSPkzoRbaL2RipP=%2B8xoGC8jqqfD8Q>