Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:59:23 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: kientzle@acm.org, libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BOF at BSDCon: FreeBSD Installer, Packages System Message-ID: <20001027005923.D3713@puck.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <52554.972617383@winston.osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com on Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:43PM -0700 References: <kientzle@acm.org> <52554.972617383@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:29:43PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > Erm, but that's the entire point - it's SUPPOSED to work and if it > doesn't, that port can be considered broken because it doesn't build a > correct package. Let's not just casually dismiss something which is > actually a hard-and-fast part of the functional spec before "moving > on" here either. :-) No Jordan, I think he was talking about options that are available in ports. Currently there's no intuitive way to put options in packages and know it's there without having to hack the damn package to find out whether an option was enabled or not. Besides renaming the package file, of course, and that can get ugly. -- Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> - Physics Computer Network wench To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001027005923.D3713>