Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:28:59 -0800 From: David Syphers <dsyphers@u.washington.edu> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: win32-codecs question ... Message-ID: <200701042129.00139.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <200701041339.36221.fcash@ocis.net> References: <438465.16988.qm@web32710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200701041327.52134.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> <200701041339.36221.fcash@ocis.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 04 January 2007 13:39, Freddie Cash wrote: > If a port supports the OPTION framework, then the first time you run make ... > > This is all nicely documented in the ports(7) man page. Where I wouldn't think to look unless I knew something had changed, or something failed to build with a "look at ports(7)" error. > And there were a bunch of head's ups on the -ports mailing list Which I don't read... I don't think I was subscribed to this even back when I read -current, -cvs-all, -hackers, -ipfw, -mobile, -questions, -security, and -stable. > I believe there's also a blurb about this in the handbook. I haven't read the handbook on ports since the 1990's. I'm just a poster child for all that the doc people hate, aren't I? :) > And a mention of it in /usr/ports/UPDATING > and/or /usr/ports/CHANGES. Now, this I read. And no, it's not documented there. The only mentions in UPDATING are under postfix entries, and I don't use postfix. The entries in CHANGES wouldn't catch your eye unless you knew what you were looking for - everything assumes prior knowledge of what OPTIONS is and what it implies. Nonetheless, I am now enlightened. And I feel like an old fogey even though I'm not even 30 :) -David -- Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200701042129.00139.dsyphers>