Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:14 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <4FC69346.4030700@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> would only cause confusion. > I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want > these features are building specialized systems and they know very > well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be > desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, > say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I > suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. > -- for our commercial systems, we don't install man, docs, examples. and, I would suspect that I would be a little peeved if next time I recompile all the ports, I had to stop and hit 'WITHOUT_PORTDOCS, WITHOUT_PORTEXAMPLES' on every port. Upward compatibility folks, if at all possible. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC69346.4030700>