Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:29:13 -0600 From: "M. L. Dodson" <mldodson@comcast.net> To: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> Cc: Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Subject: Re: Suggested improvements for ports Message-ID: <4788EAD9.5040202@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <4788D6E8.2060902@gmail.com> References: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <4788D0E6.7080007@gmx.de> <4788D6E8.2060902@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> Paul Schmehl wrote: >>> 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config for >>> the options that you want. So, when you select sasl in postfix, >>> you never get the chance to check the saslauthd option, for >>> example. >> As the ports man page states: >> >> # make config-recursive >> >> does what you want. It's surprising how often people claim this >> feature is missing, even though it has been there ever since I >> started using FreeBSD. >> > > Not completely correct for reasons given in > http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf > > > - -- > Aryeh M. Friedman > FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools. > http://www.flosoft-systems.com > Developer, not business, friendly. That is completely off the point of the email to which you are responding. That is the way we do it in the FBSD ports system. We all know, as you have said ad nauseam, you believe the ports system is broken because of that. Why must you always hijack threads to make points for your agenda? Bud Dodson PS, I will refuse respond to the (almost guaranteed) passive aggressive flame you will use to respond to this post. -- M. L. Dodson Email: mldodson-at-comcast-net Phone: eight_three_two-five_63-386_one
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4788EAD9.5040202>