From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 1 15:41:45 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A475F868; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:41:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) Received: from micro.madpilot.net (micro.madpilot.net [88.149.173.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D768FC0A; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from micro.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by micro.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3XsrHn6X7yz1Zg; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:41:41 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at madpilot.net Received: from micro.madpilot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by micro.madpilot.net (micro.madpilot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iliAcFHfB2Np; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:41:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from tommy.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by micro.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:41:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50929832.9070400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:41:38 +0100 From: Guido Falsi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: svn commit: r306797 - head/emulators/bochs References: <201211011133.qA1BXdZE082128@svn.freebsd.org> <20121101134842.GA13708@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20121101134842.GA13708@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:41:45 -0000 On 11/01/12 14:48, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 11:33:39AM +0000, Guido Falsi wrote: >> New Revision: 306797 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/306797 >> >> Log: >> - Replace usage of !${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} with empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO) > > Any reason for doing it this way? AFAIK both forms are equivalent (in fact > I prefer the ! one, but with a space after exclamation mark). I have no preference, but the porter's handbook reports the empty() form as THE one. Most ports are following the examples there so I was conforming to it. To tell the truth I'm quite sure that I was the one who wrote the old lines when converting it to optionsng, at the time thee porter's handbook had still not been updated with optionsng examples. -- Guido Falsi