From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 08:30:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B4016A4BF; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-107-253.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.107.253]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8736743FD7; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:30:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3893E66B04; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 19A98A94; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:30:40 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: deischen@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030909153039.GA942@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20030905.183837.116096286.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: DougB@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: NO_FOO knobs in make.conf X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:30:43 -0000 --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:42:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > > In message: <20030905140628.H90946@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> > > Doug Barton writes: > > : Once we get general consensus (not universal agreement :) on this, I'= ll > > : take responsibility for marshaling the aforementioned volunteer > > : resources. > >=20 > > I'd just do it. we've already talked this to death. Lots of people > > want it, some don't. Every time we talk about it, that's the > > outcome. Let's just do it and get on with our lives. >=20 > Or change all the NO*, NO_* to WANT_* and default them to yes. That would be inconsistent with the ports tree. Kris --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/XfIfWry0BWjoQKURApXeAKDWx1DRqnbGXLQDDFx3BQdFHcluiQCfXl/I UYSHRWU7WJ3LnBjmJfP1P+g= =0yup -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--