Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:56:31 +0400
From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: okay to .include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.java.mk"?
Message-ID: <40D6788F.8010902@ciam.ru>
In-Reply-To: <7B355F0F-C2CA-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
References: <7B355F0F-C2CA-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > I have a different approach in PR 64233: pre-include options when > available. A bsd.port.options.mk would just be a hack working around > the many deficiencies of OPTIONS. IMHO OPTIONS should be deprecated > and replaced by something better. I would like to see a graphical > configuration tool, but OPTIONS is just badly designed and hard to > support, so it causes more problems than it solves. Does it means your PR/64233 is not appropriate? --- Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40D6788F.8010902>