Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 May 2010 17:23:12 +0000
From:      Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To:        David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@critical.ch>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash Makefile distinfo
Message-ID:  <20100512172312.GA48583@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100512162639.GB29259@dragon.NUXI.org>
References:  <201005101825.o4AIPXGC040135@repoman.freebsd.org> <20100510221146.c70877af.ehaupt@critical.ch> <4BE8AF14.3080006@FreeBSD.org> <20100511094731.7f461540.ehaupt@critical.ch> <4BE9A251.6040602@FreeBSD.org> <20100512162639.GB29259@dragon.NUXI.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:26:39AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:30:41AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 05/11/10 00:47, Emanuel Haupt wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug, the OPTIONS patch as you posted it on ports@ does not play so
> > > well with shells/bash-static. I've created shells/bash-static in order
> > > to have packages created by the build cluster.
> > 
> > Yeah, I forgot about that port, sorry. I can rework the patch easily
> > enough if there is interest.
> 
> An OPTIONS patch would be find - as long as it isn't the default.

What's wrong with it being defaut?  Batch builds will simply use the
defaults; having an explicit "options" file with required Makefile dances
looks bogus to me.

./danfe



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100512172312.GA48583>