From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 15 13:39:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E5416A4CE; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtaw6.prodigy.net (mtaw6.prodigy.net [64.164.98.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFFF43D1F; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:39:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (a5e3bee200a4d8dfe9946cb429f4d069@adsl-67-119-53-169.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.119.53.169]) by mtaw6.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1FLc6hF012037; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:38:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C92AE66D0E; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:38:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:38:59 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Mark Linimon Message-ID: <20040215213859.GA56967@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040215203341.GC53260@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: Paul Murphy cc: marcus@FreeBSD.ORG cc: FreeBSD Ports cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: ghostscript-afpl vs ghostscript-gnu X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:39:03 -0000 --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:27:57PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > > Eww, how did this superfluous variable get into bsd.port.mk? You're > > supposed to use GHOSTSCRIPT_PORT to specify which of the n ghostscript > > ports you want to use. >=20 > As ports/36112, which was originally someone else's PR, but one > on which you had commented "this patch needs to be reworked for > the current bsd.port.mk" which I then did. See audit log for > details. You've got my permission to change it if you hate it. >=20 It looks like the WITH_cruft appeared in the audit trail at a later point. Actually I think some of my responses to Jens were not recorded in the audit trail either. Kris --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAL+bzWry0BWjoQKURAiRIAJ9k55bsrqdkzPhBS80abVdJiAUgTACgze/0 K3IkqxlJvmrxO7XPxn5R8mY= =jqnJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH--