Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:57:40 -0500 From: "Scot Hetzel" <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: "Aren Olvalde Tyr" <aren.tyr@gawab.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade Tool Message-ID: <790a9fff0605021057i28720360u97fae49b08e978a7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200605021827.34873.aren.tyr@gawab.com> References: <44538D42.8030301@chrismaness.com> <200605010901.50654.aren.tyr@gawab.com> <20060501091523.GA38820@pentarou.parodius.com> <200605021827.34873.aren.tyr@gawab.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On the subject of which, does anyone know if there is any convention for = the > pre-built FreeBSD packages? i.e. Are they built extremely conservatively, > with all optional bits switched off, or aggressively, i.e. all optional b= its > on? Or is it "default", i.e. most commonly wanted options on, more obscur= e > off; or finally, just purely random, down to whatever the person who buil= t > the package happened to choose at the time depending on their mood? > The default options are usually what ever the Port Maintainer decides are to be the default. Over time, the user community requests that a certain option be either enabled or disabled by default. There are also some ports that when a certain variable is set during a package run, that it overrides the ports default options, and uses different options for package building (I'm guessing so that the port is more compatible with other ports). Scot -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were mamed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0605021057i28720360u97fae49b08e978a7>