Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:59:03 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkmpUvP5%2BKPx1z%2B1M_m-D5ejEzLWq6En5N_OasnDG5S%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 October 2012 06:49, Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkmpUvP5%2BKPx1z%2B1M_m-D5ejEzLWq6En5N_OasnDG5S%2BQ>