From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 12 21:44:14 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888F5106566B;
	Sat, 12 May 2012 21:44:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.214.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6122C8FC22;
	Sat, 12 May 2012 21:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkvi18 with SMTP id i18so2822133bkv.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 12 May 2012 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=jiZPO5U9/BKG9aGkb4WV32TNCyjDs32UQAU/sdRJr/A=;
	b=aIKuIe5cwzSfkCicOIGf6881P7OH4g2FSNxOU5HDo6a3qOMo7TFbKzQne/2NeFcK8W
	Hl5ynYDwG2kZpng99/VXgGlVA52buwOOCCFBWrMZeKWPfitKBIeLOH3cD0H576rh4E1B
	OHdTmdFd5F5cMZJ8pkGHJesSf8gFlgIZeM2E8gh+pOMYTmkxIGS+jGsA2fshskcCaAV/
	U2T7IiQhDs/D/xasUPexnsVJQa5REUhr9riCdmSck5K9Rx/XrQ+o3+6hIE34xWBBPrjm
	lV+jfC9WtRAzbuHcHiGWIf3SvDhBaRgknCo0c+cLXfX4sSpaBEabGyR4q5MslSmPajlS
	JZUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.154.214 with SMTP id p22mr998124bkw.115.1336859052348;
	Sat, 12 May 2012 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.171.138 with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.171.138 with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120512131731.GB3222@azathoth.lan>
References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org>
	<4FAE047D.7040708@FreeBSD.org> <20120512131731.GB3222@azathoth.lan>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 22:44:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CADLo83_wWz2-_dWkGuT-TSPkzoRbaL2RipP=+8xoGC8jqqfD8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 21:44:14 -0000

On 12 May 2012 14:18, "Baptiste Daroussin" <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:34:37AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote:
> > Erwin Lansing ha scritto:
> > > portmgr has been working for long on a new option framework for the
ports to improve some of the deficiencies in the current framework.
> >
> > Great work! Looking quickly at the documentation I have a doubt: while I
> > think most ports handle NOPORTDOCS, I think WITHOUT_NLS is handled only
> > by a small percentage, so, if I have understood correctly, many ports
> > should include OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=NLS. Is it correct?
>
> You are right the documentation is not clear concerning that point.
>
> In this implementation option is enforced at all, only default value are
set by
> the bsd.options.mk which are DOCS and NLS.
>
> crees can you fix that part of the doc? the infomation I sent to you first
> weren't clear about it, sorry.
>
> So currently DOCS and NLS are set on if they are defined by the
> maintainer and only if they are defined by the maintainer.
>
> So no change expected at all from the current defaults.
>

Done.  I'll get the final references to WITH_ etc converted as soon as I
can.

Chris