Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:45:40 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> Cc: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, stijn@win.tue.nl, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nbm@mithrandr.moria.org Subject: Re: Proposed new 'options' target Message-ID: <20020722144540.GV52296@squall.waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <20020722161824.53353724.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> References: <20020720162928.GD37802@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020722074605.GC3222@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20020722140603.06bc1ae1.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> <20020722133510.GR52296@squall.waterspout.com> <20020722161824.53353724.corecode@corecode.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:18:24PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > > That would be optimal. However, I wouldn't get too excited about > > putting things in the base system. There's no reason for that to > > be necessary -- we can simply have bsd.port.mk depend on a port > > being installed to support this feature. That way, systems that > > have already been released can have their cake and eat it too. > > like the sed_inplace stuff. though i think that things _needed_ to build > a port should be in the base system (like the sed -i now both in current > and stable) Actually, I disagreed with how the sed inplace stuff was implemented and still believe it is rather suboptimal. However, I don't particularly care and don't wish to make a big fuss over it. Regarding the "need" to be in the base system, I think that "need" should be evaluated very strictly. We don't really NEED options to build ports, right? :) > > Looks ok. Though I don't understand the need for a "version" > > line. What are "sel", "msel", and "text"? > > version is for a change in the options. if the options don't change > there is no point in presenting the options over and over again when > updating and compiling. > but if there is a change (options removed or added) the old saved > options may be no more valid. so the user needs to choose again. If the options are changed, wouldn't this be reflected in PORTREVISION? I suppose, an additional granularity wouldn't hurt things too much. > sel, msel and text are some ideas for options that might be needed for > some ports. maybe for language selection, themes, or whatever. dunno > really. but i thought there may be a need for that. If you can't clarify what the purpose would be, you surely can't implement their usage, and thus they have no purpose here. Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020722144540.GV52296>