cvs commit: ports/security/krb5 Makefile
stefan.schablowski at prolificx.com
Mon Jan 15 03:16:44 UTC 2007
> Do people prefer to have the documentation installed
> by default with MIT KRB5 or would folks rather have
> the documentation only installed when specified in
> a make option?
I'd opt for the latter option, having the doc only installed on demand.
I would help a lot already, though, if the new knob was documented in a
way that noobs like me understand, so I don't have to gaze at the
Makefile diff scratching my head...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cy.Schubert at komquats.com [mailto:Cy.Schubert at komquats.com]
> Sent: Monday, 15 January 2007 3:55 p.m.
> To: ports-committers at FreeBSD.org; cvs-ports at FreeBSD.org;
> cvs-all at FreeBSD.org; freebsd-ports at FreeBSD.org; Jim Davis;
> Stefan Schablowski
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/krb5 Makefile
> In message <200701140513.l0E5DX9w038711 at repoman.freebsd.org>,
> Cy Schubert write
> > cy 2007-01-14 05:13:32 UTC
> > FreeBSD ports repository
> > Modified files:
> > security/krb5 Makefile
> > Log:
> > Include new documentation dependencies.
> > Conditionally build and install documentation using a new knob.
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.109 +12 -2 ports/security/krb5/Makefile
> I've received a couple of complaints so far from folks who
> aren't enamoured with the fact that texinfo or teTeX, and
> dvips are required to build the MIT KRB5 port. I've put a
> knob in the port to disable building and installing MIT's
> KRB5 documentation. Do people prefer to have the
> documentation installed by default with MIT KRB5 or would
> folks rather have the documentation only installed when
> specified in a make option?
> Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at komquats.com>
> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy at FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-ports