Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:31:39 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: mldodson@comcast.net Cc: Dominic Fandrey <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Subject: Re: Suggested improvements for ports Message-ID: <4789078B.4020101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4788F7A6.9040001@gmail.com> References: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <4788D0E6.7080007@gmx.de> <4788D6E8.2060902@gmail.com> <4788EAD9.5040202@comcast.net> <4788F7A6.9040001@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let me retract the comment about the OP contacting me privately I just looked back at my archived mail and relized the names where simelar but it was not the same person. Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > M. L. Dodson wrote: >> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Dominic Fandrey wrote: >>>> Paul Schmehl wrote: >>>>> 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the >>>>> config for the options that you want. So, when you select >>>>> sasl in postfix, you never get the chance to check the >>>>> saslauthd option, for example. >>>> As the ports man page states: >>>> >>>> # make config-recursive >>>> >>>> does what you want. It's surprising how often people claim >>>> this feature is missing, even though it has been there ever >>>> since I started using FreeBSD. >>>> >>> Not completely correct for reasons given in >>> http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf >>> >>> >>> - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools. >>> http://www.flosoft-systems.com Developer, not business, >>> friendly. >>> >> That is completely off the point of the email to which you are >> responding. > I think there is a problem with your threading system (note the OP > contacted me privately before posting about learning more about > ports 2.0 and thus by definition is interested in any changes it > might have in store) > >> That is the way we do it in the FBSD ports system. > > No it was an attempt to resolve issues that are either a) not well > documented in the current system and/or are not possible with it b) > thus by definition within the intresest of the ports 2.0 effort. >> We all know, as you have said ad nauseam, you believe the ports >> system is broken because of that. Why must you always hijack >> threads to make points for your agenda? > >> Bud Dodson > >> PS, I will refuse respond to the (almost guaranteed) passive >> aggressive flame you will use to respond to this post. > > You don't have to respond to it because you claimof hijacking is > incorrect (1. I responded to OP saying that this is on the ports > 2.0 agenda and thus need not be debated or rehashed publically... > 2. Out of x replies I have offered only 3 sentences all of them > where to point to primary sources)/ > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools. http://www.flosoft-systems.com Developer, not business, friendly. "Free software != Free beer" Blog: http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/index.php -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHiQeLjRvRjGmHRgQRAvFPAJ40SYRc4GWvl6EQWwca/7h+8Hp0pwCgsaCl JnfjEetZLcP7iiEVl3pUUPQ= =2454 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4789078B.4020101>