Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:41:01 +0100 From: "Pav Lucistnik" <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: "Danny Pansters" <danny@ricin.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Opinion on cross-port OPTIONS CONFLICTS Message-ID: <20071222163747.M10597@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200712220155.48097.danny@ricin.com> References: <200712211524.25454.josh@tcbug.org> <200712220007.45753.danny@ricin.com> <1198283363.95955.11.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <200712220155.48097.danny@ricin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > That's why you do slave port with an option toggled, when you need a > > package you can depend on. OPTIONS haven't changed this aspect. > > But you can't readily specify option X enabled, option Y disabled on > that slave port. You can, that's the point. > There may come a time when it's decided to either have vanilla > plists and seperate one(s) with options or dont track plists for non > default options at all. I bet most/many non-default ports don't get > properly packaged anyway as it is. Port needs to package cleanly with any combination of OPTIONS specified. If it doesn't, it needs to be fixed. -- Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> on the road via OpenWebMail
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071222163747.M10597>