From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Mar 23 17:23: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [207.154.226.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F9D37B719; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:23:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from billf@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1098) id 0E40A81D01; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:23:04 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:23:03 -0600 From: Bill Fumerola To: alex@cichlids.cichlids.com, Mikhail Teterin , ports@freebsd.org, knu@freebsd.org, ve@sci.fi Subject: Re: WITH_X11 vs. NO_X Message-ID: <20010323192303.V2567@elvis.mu.org> References: <200103212041.f2LKfB161374@misha.privatelabs.com> <20010323175351.A2279@cichlids.cichlids.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010323175351.A2279@cichlids.cichlids.com>; from alex@cichlids.cichlids.com on Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:53:51PM +0100 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-FEARSOME-20010209 i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:53:51PM +0100, Alexander Langer wrote: > Thus spake Mikhail Teterin (mi@misha.privatelabs.com): > > > .ifndef NO_X > > WITH_X11= YES > > .endif > > or the other way around? > > No. > NO_X forbids use of X while WITH_X11 enables it explicitely. > There still is a "I just don't care" case. agreed. -- Bill Fumerola - security yahoo / Yahoo! inc. - fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message