From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 30 13:14:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EC81065675; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:14:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39AD8FC1D; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4UDEev0066009; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:14:40 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bapt@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q4UDEeYu066008; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:14:40 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to bapt@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:14:37 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Vitaly Magerya Message-ID: <20120530131437.GI9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IR1Y5IvQhrKgS4e6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Erwin Lansing Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:14:40 -0000 --IR1Y5IvQhrKgS4e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:33:56PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert > NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we > do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking > if I want the docs -- which I don't really care either way (unless that > brings in new dependencies). >=20 > Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and > for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put > DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think? You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in OPTIONS_DEFI= NE but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't= have the dialog showing up Just make sure to .include in any case. this is a unvolunteer side effect but this works. if you don't want the dialog just add NO_DIALOG to your make.conf like I do= but that is another problem. anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term goal because they are inconsistent, but what they do should be respected in beca= use they are useful, and for compatibility DOCS and EXAMPLES are enabled by def= ault. regards, Bapt --IR1Y5IvQhrKgS4e6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/GHT0ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExZFgCdHna5aMzSsjsgy2acgk+GjclP eiYAn17X6+A3nX0TaC7M+LJ3/M+hepI5 =6nyy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IR1Y5IvQhrKgS4e6--