Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:16:24 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <4FCA7498.6050501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120601191331.GR10094@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FC69352.4000702@FreeBSD.org> <20120530214803.GD85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120601191331.GR10094@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/1/2012 12:13 PM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of
> the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to
> escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a
> usecase for them?
I don't need the !English language support offered by NLS/gettext, so
prefer not to have the extra space consumed on my hard drives whenever
possible. Is anything in software ever truly a 100% solution? That said,
I agree that the default should be "ON" for the purpose of package
building, and if the whole knob went away I wouldn't lose sleep.
I don't use NOPORTDOCS personally, but I can see the use case for it,
and don't mind putting in the effort to support it in my ports.
hth,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCA7498.6050501>