Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:40:38 +0400 From: Subbsd <subbsd@gmail.com> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why vim ports have personal KNOBS for options Message-ID: <BANLkTik-401k6N94upmS2WrxNtERsP0puA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110327184837.GA36228@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <BANLkTinymz5kjuysy1dFqoOkhTmUqHVheg@mail.gmail.com> <20110327184837.GA36228@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> wr= ote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:19:44PM +0400, Subbsd wrote: >> Ive wanted to ask why the option of vim port has not yet been handed >> via dialog by default. Personally, to make them work, we must define >> WITH_OPTIONS=3Dyes in make.conf (or WITH_VIM_OPTIONS=3Dyes). Life withou= t >> it is so difficult ;) > > Because the maintainer of the vim port has a dislike for the OPTIONS > framework. > I expected to hear that just so happened historically. =F4ext question I ask only to satisfy my interest. What OPTIONS framework basically can someone not like it? =E3hat are the disadvantages compared to " grep define /usr/ports/<category>/<portname>/Makefile "? Maybe the other of thousand maintainrs something not know about it?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTik-401k6N94upmS2WrxNtERsP0puA>