Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:00:34 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: kob6558@gmail.com Cc: annulen@yandex.ru, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, nacho319@gmail.com Subject: Re: port variants Message-ID: <4f8966e2.OcinJeOK1WxrXm51%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1sEhiP51WDxAkYu7%2BbMknSeNWet7BmHNfHj2ML8ZzxtuQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG_PEexDO2Shk_46RYpKyjpYakAGYp1mwPU7C=QUM7HbAdnNug@mail.gmail.com> <CAOjFWZ4womjueyvF4o6Yc_bQb2_DwoV5hMPJNx8EpqUaUCOFbw@mail.gmail.com> <0E61DE82-499B-47EF-9EEA-F9F3EB166A0A@gmail.com> <866281334347264@web24.yandex.ru> <CAN6yY1sEhiP51WDxAkYu7%2BbMknSeNWet7BmHNfHj2ML8ZzxtuQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> wrote: > While I think makefile-options is the way to go, I should also > point out that for the specific case of emacs and X11, it is > not used due to the very large differences. Other "variants" > are handled via options, but there are separate emacs and > emacs-nox11 ports. > ... > The port maintainer/developer has to make a call as to which > approach is more practical, but I suspect portmgr@ will press > for maximum use of makefile-options. One reason to use a slave port instead of an option is so that both configurations will be routinely build-tested, and corresponding packages made available. Any one port can have only one "default" configuration.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4f8966e2.OcinJeOK1WxrXm51%perryh>