Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:06:28 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 204334] security/fwknop: Add missing configuration options Message-ID: <bug-204334-13-xq3PbhU3jL@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-204334-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-204334-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204334 Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marcus@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #9 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Jens Grassel from comment #8) Deprecated/Undesirable only where a relevant options "helper" can be made to replace it. If the porters handbook needs updating to be a bit less ambiguous/unequivocal, let us know in a new documentation issue :) For Example: .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO} CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--enable-foo .endif Can be turned in into: FOO_CONFIGURE_ENABLE=foo If you already have some FOO_* options helpers, that's fine, an portlint may need to be taught to detect <OPT>_* options helpers to avoid the false positive (portlint maintainer cc'd). Regarding run-time test/QA confirmation, that's great, but there can also be subtle packaging issues that don't show up until deinstall/upgrade/etc time :) If you don't have poudriere available (highly preferable), you may include (as an attachment), the output of the following instead: make stage && make check-plist && make stage-qa && make package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-204334-13-xq3PbhU3jL>