Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:00:57 +0300 From: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <4FC62819.3090206@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120530131437.GI9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <20120530131437.GI9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> 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_DEFINE
> but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't have
> the dialog showing up
That sounds sensible.
How should users activate/deactivate DOCS and/or EXAMPLES from command
line in this case? Should they use "make OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS"?
> anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term
Right.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC62819.3090206>