From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 3 09:40:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24876106564A for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 09:40:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [69.147.83.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003E68FC0A for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 09:40:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o439eJqs055703 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 09:40:19 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o439eJAO055654; Mon, 3 May 2010 09:40:19 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:40:19 GMT Message-Id: <201005030940.o439eJAO055654@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: "Schweigert, Udo CERT" Cc: Subject: Re: ports/146183: [patch] mail/mutt-devel: add OPTIONS support X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Schweigert, Udo CERT" List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 09:40:20 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/146183; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Schweigert, Udo CERT" To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: fw@moov.de Subject: Re: ports/146183: [patch] mail/mutt-devel: add OPTIONS support Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:37:03 +0200 This at least would break POLA as most up-to-now users of the port expect to still use the "long" knob-names. Also up to now there is code in the Makefile which sets different defaults for different OSVERSIONs. As this only applies to OSVERSION < 602107 I think that could be deleted from the Makefile. In summary I'm asking for advice from the ports-people: - Should code be added to still support the long option names, e.g. WITH_MUTT_COMPRESSED_FOLDERS equally to WITH_COMPRESSED_FOLDERS? Or is a respective hint in UPDATING enough? - Can the code for OSVERSION less than 602107 been deleted? Regards Udo.