From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 26 01:07:01 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 2F41B16A4CF for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:07:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpq1.home.nl (smtpq1.home.nl [213.51.128.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCA443D54 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:07:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.128.136] (port=60935 helo=smtp5.home.nl) by smtpq1.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Be1eS-0006Nz-Un for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:06:40 +0200 Received: from cp464173-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([212.204.145.167]:63990 helo=workstation.homenet) by smtp5.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Be1eP-0003d1-5f for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:06:37 +0200 From: Danny Pansters To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:06:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40DCBE30.5020706@att.net> <200406260237.45464.danny@ricin.com> <20040626005525.GV72578@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <20040626005525.GV72578@toxic.magnesium.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406260306.32011.danny@ricin.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: mozilla-1.6_4,2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: danny@ricin.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:07:01 -0000 On Saturday 26 June 2004 02:55, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > explicit WITH_GTK1="no". It does want to use gtk2 per default but it > > This is wrong. It doesn't matter what you set WITH_GTK1 to; as long as > WITH_GTK1 is defined, mozilla will be built against Gtk1. Oww, I always assumed that NO was the same as not defined. Thank you for pointing that out! Dan