Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:24:44 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <20120530142443.GJ9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <4FC62819.3090206@gmail.com> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <20120530131437.GI9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FC62819.3090206@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:00:57PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> 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?
> >=20
> > 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 w=
on't have
> > the dialog showing up
>=20
> That sounds sensible.
>=20
> How should users activate/deactivate DOCS and/or EXAMPLES from command
> line in this case? Should they use "make OPTIONS_UNSET=3DDOCS"?
exactly!
>=20
> > anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term
>=20
> Right.
--Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/GLasACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EywlgCgphy6Dp+fAzuZsyqvFNLC4KGu
JmoAn36z600FrRii2ZYxv3HMqIAM6PE2
=Gdnt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Do4IU1xF/9sod/r6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120530142443.GJ9952>