Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:43:39 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: named/bind98... rather ports usage and base interaction. Message-ID: <CADLo838HhMQwG1S_sK4Y3_3yyTZJQeW4t6hjni8RaOSE_22bpw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F6E40BC.6020400@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120323154105.GB84340@DataIX.net> <4F6E40BC.6020400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 Mar 2012 21:47, "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 3/23/2012 8:41 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > > Hey Doug, > > > > Do you know of anything we could do to stop the following from happening > > ? > > Yes, see below. > > > If you set world to build without BIND and it is your intention to use > > bind from ports... upon running (make delete-old) > > I don't like the delete-old stuff, and make no efforts to support it. > That said, the solution to your problem is to not use WITHOUT_BIND, but > to use the various other WITHOUT_BIND_* knobs, except for > WITHOUT_BIND_ETC. Yes, this is clunky; no, I have no plans to change it. I would agree in the sense that delete-old should not be deleting stuff just because it's set WITHOUT. We should really use two targets, one for old stuff, and one for irrelevant stuff. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838HhMQwG1S_sK4Y3_3yyTZJQeW4t6hjni8RaOSE_22bpw>