Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:01:41 +0800 From: "Rong-en Fan" <grafan@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, NIIMI Satoshi <sa2c@sa2c.net> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OPTIONS improvement Message-ID: <6eb82e0704032301q5581fd9ew8b0a31aac1fdb52f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070404011014.GA20170@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070403051207.GW3330@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <4612DAC9.1090505@sa2c.net> <20070404011014.GA20170@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/4/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:52:57AM +0900, NIIMI Satoshi wrote: > > On 2007/04/03 14:12, Rong-En Fan wrote: > > > After pav@'s commit to bsd.port.mk, now you can test WITH/WITHOUT > > > freely with OPTIONS. > > > > I filed a PR ports/78343 with similar patch, but the PR was rejected. > > Why the policy has been changed? > > Different committer, different opinion I guess. Opinions change over > time, too :) Well, current implementation still has one flaw. If users specify WITH/WITHOUT in make.conf which conflicts with OPTIONS (/var/db/ports/somewhere), the result depends on how port's Makefile written. However, I think it's not how OPTIONS works. Regards, Rong-En Fan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6eb82e0704032301q5581fd9ew8b0a31aac1fdb52f>