Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:27:06 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r388648 - in head/net: asterisk11 asterisk13 Message-ID: <56419C4A.6080809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1511091255000.2548@anthias> References: <201506052330.t55NUBZL020965@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1511082001320.2548@anthias> <564044BC.5050203@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1511091255000.2548@anthias>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/11/2015 11:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Looking at the above I'd vouch for "Build with current GCC" which My guess/feeling is the word current is at a minimum confusing and at worse misleading/wrong. Second, I don't think it's necessary to specify what is ultimately only a ports framework implementation detail, in the description itself. What is the benefit to the user? * Have foo built with <X> versus whatever it built with without this option enabled
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56419C4A.6080809>