Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:48:05 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering Message-ID: <20071204014805.24d2f25f@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <475489E4.2050704@gmail.com> References: <BDFE616B01457E0B71D9FD2F@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <47547FEE.9040405@gmail.com> <CF7CA160EBCB18FB5A6E7ECB@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <475489E4.2050704@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:57:40 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually what see is a signficant difference in the way the banner is > displayed and no I will not change the rules becuase the root issue is > xdm-banner is only installed if you make the metaport with nothing > else installed I'm a little sceptical that it's installed by anything: $ find /usr/ports/ -iname Makefile |xargs grep -i "xbanner" |grep -Ev "^/usr/ports/x11/xbanner/" /usr/ports/x11/Makefile: SUBDIR += xbanner Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071204014805.24d2f25f>