Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:16:54 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.libnames.mk src/lib/bind config.mk src/lib/bind/bind Makefile src/lib/bind/bind9 Makefile src/lib/bind/dns Makefile src/lib/bind/isc Makefile src/lib/bind/isccc Makefi Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409241811490.93902@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <41545194.1030700@DougBarton.net> References: <200409241342.i8ODg06a030839@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040924164730.GA4259@xor.obsecurity.org> <41545194.1030700@DougBarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Doug Barton wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:42:00PM +0000, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > >> Log: > >> Don't expose BIND libraries and their headers to the public by default, > >> but have a knob (WANT_BIND_LIBS) to build and install them in /usr/lib > >> and /usr/include. Rumors are that this may be useful at a later point, > >> let's see. > > > > > > The naming of this is inconsistent with the ports collection: WANT_* > > variables are for internal port use only, and may not be set by the > > user. User control switches are in the WITH_*/WITHOUT_* namespace. > > Argh, thanks. I had this thought in the back of my mind, but got it > backwards. We'll get this fixed. well actually for the base system shouldn't things be named NO_* ? So NO_BIND_LIBS in addition to NO_BIND would be better with but with a default to false instead of true ? It's confusing anyway because it's the other way round things are normally used but ENABLE_BIND_LIBS doesn't sound to be an option either. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0409241811490.93902>