Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:14:49 +0200 From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAPERSIZE in /etc/make.conf? Message-ID: <7saa6p$5or$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> References: <7s4vte$uau$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> <vqcr9jtb4gv.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > * - The package builders end up with packages that are unmarked but > * assume one papersize. Of course, we already have this situation with > * some ports. > > No reason to spread the problem to *all* papersize-varying ports. ;> Does that mean that we have a policy that all ports that compile in a default paper size should come in explicit -a4 and -letter versions (still more Ghostscript versions...)? The current situation where some ports do and some don't, and simply installing a port without first reading the Makefile, or a port being installed as a dependency, can make you end up with letter-programs in A4-country is unsatisfactory. How about this: Every port that requires the distinction comes in a base version that requires PAPERSIZE to be set (/etc/make.conf, environment, etc), plus there are explicit -a4, -letter, etc ports slaved off it that preset PAPERSIZE. The package building machine ignores the base port, dependencies from other ports only refer to the base one. The only disadvantage I see with this: yet more ports. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de 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?7saa6p$5or$1>