cvs commit: ports/devel/gettext Makefile
obrien at FreeBSD.org
Mon Jul 12 00:26:01 PDT 2004
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:33:46PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:28:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:42:53PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:16:29AM +0000, David E. O'Brien wrote:
> > > > obrien 2004-07-12 05:16:29 UTC
> > > >
> > > > FreeBSD ports repository
> > > >
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > devel/gettext Makefile
> > > > Log:
> > > > Fix the release build.
> > >
> > > What's the problem? This surely isn't the best way to fix it.
> > Some ports needed in a 'make release' have dependencies on gettext.
> > If either of the nobs had any real functionality, *maybe* the overly
> > interactive dialog would be worth it. But this port was hassling users
> > over useless bits. To tell the truth, I don't think "WITH_HTMLMAN"
> > actually does anything.
> > If this were the 'mutt-devel' port, I could understand the use of
> > "OPTIONS". But if someone is really missing these bits, a gettext-<BITS>
> > port should be created.
> The interactive OPTIONS setting is easily disabled by setting BATCH
Interactive OPTIONS are heavy weight in the usability department -- the
Ports committers needs to take a serious look at what warrants OPTIONS
use. Otherwise the Ports Collection will become a tangled mess and less
and less usable. For one example, needing the root password twice just
to *BUILD* a port is unacceptable.
> (which is the canonical way to disable all kinds of port
> interactivity). You should just add that to the release port build
> environment instead.
Are you really saying HTML man pages justifies the use of OPTIONS
compared to how other ports handles much more important options?
-- David (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
More information about the cvs-all