Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:32:34 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com> Cc: Frederic Culot <culot@FreeBSD.org>, Eric <freebsdports@chillibear.com>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/rubygem-mail Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <4E2F5CA2.7090107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E2EF2AD.4020709@p6m7g8.com> References: <201107251146.p6PBkSLU027484@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E2DF92D.9020601@FreeBSD.org> <4E2EF2AD.4020709@p6m7g8.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/26/2011 10:00, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Normally, I 100% agree with Doug. But we're not only talking about ruby > here, we're talking about rails. I hard a hard time naming gems that > don't do this crap. I almost replied yesterday and said add an option, > but IMHO either way is fine, and not worth diddling over. There are at least 3 possible ways to handle this situation: 1. Force the dependency 2a. Have an OPTION and error out if the user chooses WITHOUT_FOO and foo is installed. 2b. Have an OPTION and patch the distfiles if the user chooses WITHOUT_FOO and foo is installed. Personally I don't care which option is used, but IMO the problem of ports silently growing dependencies based on what is installed on the system has to be solved. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E2F5CA2.7090107>