From owner-freebsd-doc Fri Jun 1 0:20: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C8C37B424 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:20:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f517K3C81941; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:20:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200106010720.f517K3C81941@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Cc: From: Dima Dorfman Subject: Re: docs/27807: [PATCH] The port variables for optional packages aren't documented Reply-To: Dima Dorfman Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/27807; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dima Dorfman To: mwm@mired.org Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27807: [PATCH] The port variables for optional packages aren't documented Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:19:03 -0700 mwm@mired.org writes: > Apply the attached patch to the porters handbook. WITHOUT_X has > already been documented in the make.conf man page. WITH/WITHOUT_* for > the WANT/HAVE variables should be done after this patch is > committed. And yes, I'm willing to write that up as well. I hope you don't intend on documenting (WANT|HAVE)_* in the man page; they certainly don't belong there. Sticking them along side the discussion of dependencies or some such in the Porter's Handbook would be great, though. > + The easiest of these to use is > + WITHOUT_X. If the port can be built both Isn't WITHOUT_X a make variable? I.e., shouldn't it be marked up with ? Other than that, this looks great! I'll commit it later today. Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message