Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:05:45 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Brendan Fabeny <bf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/cppcheck Makefile distinfo ports/devel/cppcheck/files patch-Makefile patch-cli__cmdlineparser.cpp Message-ID: <CAGFTUwN6W7FK7R8fKD_6WdpOJNQxXj77_R4gU5=Z%2Bx4%2By_Qc=w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20111211075324.GA25226@FreeBSD.org> References: <201112110544.pBB5isZ0077815@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111211075324.GA25226@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/11/11, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 05:44:54AM +0000, Brendan Fabeny wrote: >> bf 2011-12-11 05:44:54 UTC >> >> Modified files: >> devel/cppcheck Makefile distinfo >> devel/cppcheck/files patch-Makefile >> patch-cli__cmdlineparser.cpp >> Log: >> update to 1.52; don't build or install the manpage if >> NOPORTDOCS is defined > > This is wrong; man pages are not subject to NOPORTDOCS filtering and should > be always installed if available. > > I understand that this case is special, as manpage gets indeed built and > taints dependencies with some junk. Maybe you can ask upstream to provide > precompiled version next time? I know it is not the typical use of this variable (although one could argue that it should be), but as you point out, my rationale for the change was based on the fact that the manpages here require installing additional dependencies, which users may wish to avoid. I will ask upstream to consider supplying a pre-compiled version. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwN6W7FK7R8fKD_6WdpOJNQxXj77_R4gU5=Z%2Bx4%2By_Qc=w>