Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:17:50 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk Message-ID: <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgmCpgvW7w20Y7sfL5%2B2hDWU=C4OpidV0_AjzndYcBvaTA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201406211423.s5LENFt4010937@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgmCpgvW7w20Y7sfL5%2B2hDWU=C4OpidV0_AjzndYcBvaTA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 Jun, 2014, at 11:57, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 21 June 2014 07:23, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62>