Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:24:18 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <CADLo8381J2U1bc8MmehFLvnGko3E4E2YsxhW%2BVQ8dcxCXSmBjA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FCA0DA6.7070502@acsalaska.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FCA0DA6.7070502@acsalaska.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 2, 2012 1:57 PM, "Mel Flynn" <rflynn@acsalaska.net> wrote: > > On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: > > > All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG > > Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid > case for "zero or 1" multi options or implemented slightly different, a > case for "if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0" > The specific case is this: > - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting > one of 4 or none. > Just put a dummy option NOWEBSERVER or something in the singlegroup. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo8381J2U1bc8MmehFLvnGko3E4E2YsxhW%2BVQ8dcxCXSmBjA>