Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 9 May 2006 13:41:06 -0300
From:      "Renato Botelho" <rbgarga@gmail.com>
To:        "Yuan, Jue" <yuanjue02@gmail.com>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions
Message-ID:  <747dc8f30605090941n2b133099pe0ba35ddd4ae646a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200605100037.08447.yuanjue@yuanjue.net>
References:  <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <200605100037.08447.yuanjue@yuanjue.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/9/06, Yuan, Jue <yuanjue02@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have got a question for the OPTIONS Framework.
>
> Since it will putting KNOBS in /etc/make.conf, the problem is:
> when one port put "WITH_X11=3Dyes" into make.conf, while later another
> port may put "WITHOUT_X11=3Dyes" into the same file. So when the ports
> tree are upgraded and building process for these two ports happens,
> as far as I can see, there are still some difficulties to tell which KNOB=
 is
> for which port, right?
>
> I am not saying it is unresolved. Many solutions I have seen are mentione=
d
> here. But it is not what the OPTIONS Framework does automatically ;-) So
> using the OPTIONS Framework only may not be a complete solution for ports=
,
> from this point of view :-)

Try solution proposed by flz@FreeBSD.org in this thread...

--
Renato Botelho



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?747dc8f30605090941n2b133099pe0ba35ddd4ae646a>