Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Jun 2001 07:02:25 -0500
From:      Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To:        sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: WITHOUT_X vs. WITHOUT_X11 vs. NO_X
Message-ID:  <15128.54737.662507.784235@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <200106021146.f52Bk6o50527@mail.uic-in.net>
References:  <15128.50553.982683.359455@guru.mired.org> <200106021146.f52Bk6o50527@mail.uic-in.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net> types:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 05:52:41 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > If the decisions aren't documented when they're made, then they can't
> > be followed - and as such are a waste of time and effort. *Especially*
> > when the decision isn't an architecture decision, but is simply the
> > choice of a name.
> Well, call it whatever you like (I don't really care) but it
> certainly a -ports issue and as such should be addressed
> by the -ports team, not -doc or any other group out there.

Which was why I brought it up here, to see if there was a good reason
for it to be something else. I saw "WITHOUT_X" being used, PR'ed a
patch for the man page, and the PR was commited. Ditto for WITHOUT_X
and the various WANT_/HAVE_ variables and the porters handbook.

> > If this one had been documented when it was made
> > (BTW, when and where was that? It's wasn't in the -ports list archives
> > when I checked a few days ago), then people wouldn't be using three
> > different names to build ports without X and the issue never would
> > have come up.
> I do not know where you searched, but this certainly was
> discusses (see attached message - later I can send you a
> whole thread if you really want it).

I suspect the search engine doesn't handle "WITHOUT_X" very well, as
that's what I looked for.

> It is true that nobody
> had enforced that decision yet, but it is only matter of time.
> It is already in my TODO list, but I wouldn't mind if somebody
> will beat me on it. ;)

I don't know how you "enforce" something like that other than by
documenting it. In that's the case, it's done.

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

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?15128.54737.662507.784235>