Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:06:22 -0700
From:      perryh@pluto.rain.com
To:        wxs@freebsd.org
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, 1cynthia2flynn3@telus.net, skreuzer@exit2shell.com
Subject:   Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Message-ID:  <49c548be.Q0xaxZT5EOWlX8s/%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090321130012.GA13049@atarininja.org>
References:  <49C00745.1050607@telus.net> <20090318001138.GF95451@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090318113023.7bc51ef4@ernst.jennejohn.org> <49c1fd04.Ul73kIip/JpE7k7C%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <830D8719-1F55-4BE7-B6D5-3C711F2D57C1@exit2shell.com> <49C4098A.6030200@telus.net> <F2BBB2D6-B637-4FB6-9DCA-9966A539AE7A@exit2shell.com> <49C43643.1000709@telus.net> <20090321130012.GA13049@atarininja.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:35:15PM -0700, Cynthia Flynn wrote:
> > Steven Kreuzer wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Cynthia Flynn wrote:
> > >> Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install
> > >> of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the
> > >> WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing
> > >> any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since
> > >> I last tried it.
> > > 
> > > when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not
> > > prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11.
> > > This can be enabled by passing -DWITHOUT_X11 to make, or
> > > adding WITHOUT_X11=yes to make.conf to apply it to all ports
> > > that you build on that system
> > 
> > And I should have to dig into each potential port to investigate
> > whether such options might exist before finding out the hard way
> > that my system is going to be loaded up with things I neither
> > need nor want? Not a very user friendly approach.
>
> There is a "missing" target which will show you what will be
> installed if you were to build the port.

So "make missing" is the shovel.  The question stands.

One reason for POLA is to minimize the *need* for such defensive
practices.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49c548be.Q0xaxZT5EOWlX8s/%perryh>