alternative options for ports

[Gary Jennejohn]

Michael Nottebrock writes:
> This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that translate
> features into binary packages which can be added and removed easily. If a
> user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $package" and the answer is
> "you need install the ports-collection, set some option and then recompile
> the port" it means that the port is flawed and a slave-port which translates
> the feature into a binary package is needed.
> 


You're joking, right? I certainly am not prepared or willing to make a
slave port for every twinkie option in the ports which I maintain! Not
to mention the explosion in the number of files in the ports tree.

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org garyj[at]denx.de