Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 11:38:36 -0700 From: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports: mutt with curses instead of slang? Message-ID: <20020804113836.A7615@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20020804130806.3324fc98.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>; from corecode@corecode.ath.cx on Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:08:06PM %2B0200 References: <20020724175641.GA16725@0lsen.net> <20020725162811.GD96372@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020730214952.GA38950@0lsen.net> <20020804061655.GM1973@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020804072853.GJ2733@k7.mavetju> <20020804130806.3324fc98.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:08:06PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > > Sound like a job for pkg-opts as described in the thread "Proposed > > new 'options' target" a couple of weeks ago. See for example > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=443560+0+archive/2002/freebsd-ports/20020728.freebsd-ports ... > if anybody is interessted in the progress: > http://corecode.ath.cx/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ports/options/ > this is where my development takes place. comments apreciated. Why do we need something so "heavyweight"? Why not add an options target to each port's Makefile. Then when I add a new knob, I also add a 1-line explanation to the options: target. Having to go to a seperate tree, checkout, edit, test, commit makes documenting a new option more effort than I think it needs to be. 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?20020804113836.A7615>