Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:31:24 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27709: [PATCH] WITHOUT_X is used by many ports, but not documented. Message-ID: <20010530093124.A92304@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <15124.32232.828130.553276@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:58:16PM -0500 References: <15124.28553.521171.74698@guru.mired.org> <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> <15124.32232.828130.553276@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:58:16PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > NO_X is already 100% supported and documented in the make.conf man > page. It's possible that some port maintainers are abusing it to do > what WITHOUT_X does because WITHOUT_X isn't documented. Not only possible, it happened. When I patched the Ghostscript port to support building without X (so that people using it as part of the docproj build didn't need to install X), NO_X was the only documented variable. N --=20 FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/ --- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 --- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjsUr9sACgkQk6gHZCw343UzhwCdGQBFcHvLWM0zg9WaTwgK184L N8oAn15/zWOe+IsQEpNDOuAmEYN1jDoL =z3h1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010530093124.A92304>