Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:17:58 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optional Patches Message-ID: <4DD44596.9050401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DD443DD.90909@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <C9301CD1-D2C0-449A-BD85-8488FDC028B5@conundrum.com> <4DD443DD.90909@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/18/2011 15:10, Matthew Seaman wrote: > # Testing both WITH_ and WITHOUT_ is a good idea... I'm not sure why you would need to test both, unless it's to catch wacky stuff coming in from the environment? The usual way is to test the opposite of the default. So for default on you would test that WITHOUT_FOO is not defined. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DD44596.9050401>