Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:07:26 -0500 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: security/gnupg Message-ID: <20130201130726.73e3ff61@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130201103437.5bcae482@scorpio> <CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:42:46 +0000 Chris Rees articulated: > You're right, and ports will move towards more verbose option > descriptions in the future. However, the version dialog in older > (but still supported) versions of FreeBSD chokes on long > descriptions. Once we are free of supporting older versions, > longer/more descriptive descriptions will be possible. > > Perhaps Kuriyama-san may comment on STD_SOCKET, but my general rule of > thumb is to customise as little as possible, so if the option isn't > obviously what you want, just leave it as default :) I concur. I rarely modify the port unless I have a specific reason for doing so. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130201130726.73e3ff61>