From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 10 15:59:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5172D68E for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:59:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192AA8FC1F for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rp8so930450pbb.13 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=jDlT5u6IETbweHepfR1NdTPbaA02YhG4Q5XEAMbVDNI=; b=tVbW+yot9s8VCALycNympFgtAGQSV4zCRYpA4+cNjpMrg0MtSjAvOjUgoz2ZdX8v9c ELU/BVUQ/SeJ+KMe/TRJ4fy7Z1pxL2/JLkbc7QM3YbBKvadw1pRkDQ80qPWoOiatdsrn VgC+xvbcUGcv0CncDay+5fIHuK/YbnFB7XKZ4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=jDlT5u6IETbweHepfR1NdTPbaA02YhG4Q5XEAMbVDNI=; b=HN9DzvpydjR7h4hqnr3dhMyzNClCwouorjXG0X2Hq0lhIXXSpFLHnabFbgfFLtfob8 hvAZsZ4NsPcQSR+KV5IDP13u/aWtKIByTxY2dWeTz9Wyxi6ANQA4pABIsxaKHtA4iBCl 9Ga2mj3p1zOIJXdO2zBWYese/xMr5z7mPeW0yRHw8Dwy4JxWDF02iGLhXj+j4o8jXwzp lUFkENipWGfatc/ToWpXS9A17EgkqspNAdqDJ0JwaoLl2j9uuPmnEN7FUQVQ226Ya7qn RErX+e3yqMYW3RDfoyKXhA+PKWce57Xz6CIQYirLPLC9HTe6ub7XjkAo8rw7wizwi1Nf xaqw== Received: by 10.68.222.226 with SMTP id qp2mr74276031pbc.57.1349884773631; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.161.163 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121010124938.3e77bb12@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20121010121850.039fb6d2@bsd64.grem.de> <20121010102527.GB26497@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121010123322.0677a829@bsd64.grem.de> <20121010105757.GD26497@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121010124938.3e77bb12@bsd64.grem.de> From: Eitan Adler Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:59:03 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk To: Michael Gmelin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnM+F/XQjb49iRJqRwPsmqURg4URxvaexH0hPmkKGyy91lq29DgMhX98eNT29KMAm+1S60C Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:59:34 -0000 On 10 October 2012 06:49, Michael Gmelin wrote: ... > I had that turned on by default to make sure > the port behaves exactly like it did before conversion to OptionsNG > (it's not my lawn, you know). Hehe, this is good thing. Normally you want to try to replicate existing behavior. > The committer changed that to be off by > default, since this is a better solution for package building and I > agree with him. But... in this case the previous behavior was "buggy" so it had to be changed. > Also note that there are a lot of ports that use either techniques for > auto detection (e.g. checking for the existence of libraries to bring > in functionality) and that those should be covered as well - simply not > allowing auto detection will massively reduce functionality, so using > an OPTION to allow it might be the way to go. I think AUTODETECT might I agree. P.S. I never did properly thank you for all those OptionsNG PRs. Most of them went in without any changes at all, which is unusual. Thanks! -- Eitan Adler