Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:18:36 -0600 From: Kyle Evans <kevans91@ksu.edu> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals Message-ID: <CACNAnaHL2=PKQdy7FCaMSzjOtta9y-NUP6zLc9cJ=niRGUQhtQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6ff9b573-1778-5b5a-5bf5-773d20b72ff5@FreeBSD.org> References: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAO%2BPfDeimDrYaz68Msitb_xdnnWfPoWv37AE6teaHZae0nBcRA@mail.gmail.com> <6ff9b573-1778-5b5a-5bf5-773d20b72ff5@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> wrote: > Why can't you have both flavoured and unflavoured variants of the same > port -- eg. devel/example as well as devel/example/foo and > devel/example/bar ? It seems like it would make sense to allow devel/example to be a default flavor so that, for instantiated example, editors/vim-lite => editors/vim/lite and editors/vim could potentially be a 'full' flavor or unflavored, if that's your flavor. I personally learn towards default flavor, though, because that gives you a chance to be slightly more descriptive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaHL2=PKQdy7FCaMSzjOtta9y-NUP6zLc9cJ=niRGUQhtQ>