Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2) 
Date:      Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:30:21 GMT
From:      Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/164012: [patch] x11/dmenu version upgrade 4.5 and Xft support
Message-ID:  <201201301230.q0UCULbw085102@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help 
The following reply was made to PR ports/164012; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org>
To: <bug-followup@FreeBSD.org>, <aragon@phat.za.net>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/164012: [patch] x11/dmenu version upgrade 4.5 and Xft support
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:29:14 -0500

 --------------000003010208040907090009
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 Question to submitter, and maintainer:
 Anti-aliasing support was added as a option knob, with default On.  For 
 upward compatibility, and so there are no additional 
 features/ports/packages/files for someone updating, should this be 
 default off?
 
 Or, is does it add significantly more functionality that 75% or more of 
 the current users will want?
 
 If submitter can explain the benefits (for the ports audit logs), and 
 maintainer agrees, then we would leave default on.
 Mostly, this is a question of upwards compatibility vs significant 
 additional functionality.
 
 -- 
 Michael Scheidell, CTO
  >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
 d: +1.561.948.2259
 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
 
 --------------000003010208040907090009
 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
 <html>
   <head>
 
     <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
   </head>
   <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
     Question to submitter, and maintainer:<br>
     Anti-aliasing support was added as a option knob, with default On.&nbsp;
     For upward compatibility, and so there are no additional
     features/ports/packages/files for someone updating, should this be
     default off?<br>
     <br>
     Or, is does it add significantly more functionality that 75% or more
     of the current users will want?<br>
     <br>
     If submitter can explain the benefits (for the ports audit logs),
     and maintainer agrees, then we would leave default on.<br>
     Mostly, this is a question of upwards compatibility vs significant
     additional functionality.<br>
     <br>
     <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
       Michael Scheidell, CTO<br>
       <font color="#999999">&gt;</font><font color="#cc0000"> <b>| </b></font>
       SECNAP Network Security Corporation<br>
       d: +1.561.948.2259<br>
       w: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell">http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell</a>;
     </div>
   </body>
 </html>
 
 --------------000003010208040907090009--

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201201301230.q0UCULbw085102>