HAVE_GNOME vs. bsd.ports.options.mk
freebsd at grem.de
Wed Oct 10 16:10:36 UTC 2012
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:59:03 -0400
Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote:
> On 10 October 2012 06:49, Michael Gmelin <freebsd at grem.de> wrote:
> ... > I had that turned on by default to make sure
> > the port behaves exactly like it did before conversion to OptionsNG
> > (it's not my lawn, you know).
> Hehe, this is good thing. Normally you want to try to replicate
> existing behavior.
> > The committer changed that to be off by
> > default, since this is a better solution for package building and I
> > agree with him.
> But... in this case the previous behavior was "buggy" so it had to be
That's why I agree with him, it was the right thing to do. Ah.. I
just realized "he" was you, so yes, I totally agree with you that this
was the right thing to do and as a committer you're in the position to
do that. It wouldn't have been appropriate to change this myself though,
since I claimed to do a conversion, which wouldn't have
been correct otherwise.
> > Also note that there are a lot of ports that use either techniques
> > for auto detection (e.g. checking for the existence of libraries to
> > bring in functionality) and that those should be covered as well -
> > simply not allowing auto detection will massively reduce
> > functionality, so using an OPTION to allow it might be the way to
> > go. I think AUTODETECT might
> I agree.
> P.S. I never did properly thank you for all those OptionsNG PRs. Most
> of them went in without any changes at all, which is unusual. Thanks!
You're welcome :)
More information about the freebsd-ports