cvs commit: ports/shells/bash Makefile options
rfarmer at predatorlabs.net
Fri Sep 10 05:45:19 UTC 2010
2010/9/9 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org>:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:30:51AM +0000, David E. O'Brien wrote:
>> obrien 2010-09-10 02:30:51 UTC
>> FreeBSD ports repository
>> Modified files:
>> shells/bash Makefile
>> Added files:
>> shells/bash options
>> Add OPTIONS processing.
> Can you please explain why do you employ these rather obscure
> constructions instead of cleanly and naturally defining OPTIONS within
> the Makefile, like it is normally done in other ports?
editors/vim is even worse in this respect.
Not only are the options hidden in a similar fashion, the defaults are
completely unsuitable for 2010 - who uses GTK 1.2 anymore??
IMHO, this reflects very poorly on the whole FreeBSD project, because
this is an extremely common port and likely one of the first things
people will look for when thinking about switching from another
UNIX-like OS. Anyone who either does a standard "make install clean"
from ports or just installs the package off a release CD ends up with
a GUI that's pretty much a poor imitation of Windows 95.
Unless you read the Makefile (something newbies aren't going to think
to do) there is no indication anything else is supported/possible.
> cvs-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the cvs-all