Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:54:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009090152240.33982-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <vqcd7ie6qny.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Sep 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> * > Actually, we *can* do this with the current framework -- just create a
> * > www/virtapache port that is basically empty and have all the apache*
> * > ports depend on it. Sort of like the kde or gnome meta-ports, just at
> * > the opposite end of the dependency chain.
> *
> * I never thought of this. This would probably work great.
>
> If nobody can think of a problem with this approach, I'll go write a
> couple of these (emacs, apache comes to mind). :)
Sounds good to me.
While on the subject, is there some reason why the gnome package doesnt
seem to get built? Is it just that at any given moment at least one of its
infinite number of dependents is usually broken?
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009090152240.33982-100000>