Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:29:53 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com>, Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <4FC6D7A1.6060807@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120530213733.GC85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> <20120530213733.GC85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/30/2012 14:37, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 5/30/2012 3:33 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>>> Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
>>> NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere?
>>
>> Absolutely not. By far the majority of users benefit from installing the
>> docs and examples. Users who don't want them can continue to do what
>> they've always done, configure it in make.conf. Adding OPTIONS for these
>> would only cause confusion.
>
> That is why DOS, NLS and EXAMPLES are on by default
I'm confused by your answer. First, NLS is out of scope for the point
I'm making. Second, are you saying that you made DOCS and EXAMPLES into
OPTIONS? If so, are you saying that these options will now be presented
by default to every user, for every port?
If the old NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES knobs are still honored, and if
we are not adding OPTIONS for these to every port, then I certainly have
no objection to there being default knobs for DOCS and EXAMPLES that
maintainers can choose to use for their ports.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC6D7A1.6060807>