From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 21 16:18:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36F09BF; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:18:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from apnoea.adamw.org (apnoea.adamw.org [204.109.59.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F4922F36; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:18:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.192.25] (dhcp-108-170-169-12.cable.user.start.ca [108.170.169.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by apnoea.adamw.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2A87120B5F; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:17:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> References: <201406211423.s5LENFt4010937@svn.freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger , ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:18:02 -0000 On 21 Jun, 2014, at 11:57, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 21 June 2014 07:23, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> -GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?=3D Ghostscript PDF support >> +GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?=3D Ghostscript support >=20 > This description is now meaningless. Can you propose a better = alternative? It=92s probably better to be vague and meaningless than wrong. Someone = will think of a more accurate descriptor, but in the meantime it=92s = better not to have an inaccurate one. >> -LDAP_DESC?=3D LDAP authentication support >> +LDAP_DESC?=3D LDAP protocol support >=20 > What functionality might i gain or lose if I turn this on/off? LDAP > should likely not be a shared description at all. Sure it should. Tons of ports have LDAP support. This feels a bit like = pedantry, as =93Kerberos support=94 and =93Gopher protocol support=94 = and =93Unicode support=94 are no more or less useful, though people who = need them will know to enable them. What about =93LDAP user directory support=94? # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org