Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 00:44:26 +0800 From: "Yuan, Jue" <yuanjue02@gmail.com> To: "Renato Botelho" <rbgarga@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <200605100044.26562.yuanjue@yuanjue.net> In-Reply-To: <747dc8f30605090941n2b133099pe0ba35ddd4ae646a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <200605100037.08447.yuanjue@yuanjue.net> <747dc8f30605090941n2b133099pe0ba35ddd4ae646a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 00:41, Renato Botelho wrote: > On 5/9/06, Yuan, Jue <yuanjue02@gmail.com> wrote: > > Have got a question for the OPTIONS Framework. > > > > Since it will putting KNOBS in /etc/make.conf, the problem is: > > when one port put "WITH_X11=yes" into make.conf, while later another > > port may put "WITHOUT_X11=yes" into the same file. So when the ports > > tree are upgraded and building process for these two ports happens, > > as far as I can see, there are still some difficulties to tell which KNOB > > is for which port, right? > > > > I am not saying it is unresolved. Many solutions I have seen are > > mentioned here. But it is not what the OPTIONS Framework does > > automatically ;-) So using the OPTIONS Framework only may not be a > > complete solution for ports, from this point of view :-) > > Try solution proposed by flz@FreeBSD.org in this thread... Have seen and replied it. Really a cool method to do the job :-) Thanks -- Best Regards Yuan, Jue @ www.yuanjue.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605100044.26562.yuanjue>