ports/125625: [PATCH] dns/nsd: USE_RC_SUBR != yes

Florent Thoumie flz at xbsd.org
Wed Jul 23 15:38:56 UTC 2008

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
<pgollucci at p6m7g8.com> wrote:
> Florent Thoumie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at freebsd.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:08:03 +0100
>>> "Florent Thoumie" <flz at xbsd.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Olafur Osvaldsson
>>>> <osvaldsson at icelandic.net> wrote:
>>>>> This is something the PR responsible introduced in his original
>>>>> patch...
>>>> It's still present in your version. Anyway, I'm not blaming anyone,
>>>> just pointing out what I think is a mistake.
>>> So this is not for the user but for the port?
>>> I'll do a swap on the tree for it, because I'm sure there are more
>>> ports doing something like:
>>> ......
>>> .endif
> I was talking to itectu@ about this, and figured it would be better in
> Mk/bsd.port.mk.
>> The general rule of thumb is: if it doesn't begin with WITH_ or
>> WITHOUT_, it's not user-settable. NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES is used for
>> ports using imake that don't understand the install.man target.
> /me thought that was the USE_ vs WITH(OUT)?_ difference.
> NO* is supposed to be user settable right ?

Have a look at variables in bsd.port.mk. You should have your answer.

>> Now of course there are exceptions (usually for no good reason IMHO).
>> The likes of NOPORTDOCS/NOPORTEXAMPLES/... could be changed to
>> WITHOUT_DOCS/WITHOUT_EXAMPLES, it's just waiting for somebody to do
>> the work.
> Heh, maybe, I kind of feel like it will get reject as a style(9) change.

This is not a gratuitous change. The issue isn't to get it approved,
it's to get the work done.

Not having coherent namespaces leads to people using USE_GNOME=yes in
/etc/make.conf and wondering why every single port depends on gnome.

Florent Thoumie
flz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Committer

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list