shells/bash-static fails to package/deinstall cleanly

[Matthew Seaman]

On 26/12/2013 10:40, clutton wrote:
> The whole port because of STATIC option?
> It'll be better to move this thing to bash port and make it as an
> option. Like zsh maintainer did.

It's already an option in the bash port.

You seem somewhat unclear on the concept of slave ports and why they
should exist.  The point here is so that users of binary packages can
jut type

   pkg install bash-static

and get a statically linked version of bash.  This is the principal
reason that slave ports exist: so that the same software will be built
with different sets of default options, either for end user convenience
or because some other port depends on having some specific combination
of options.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1036 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131226/39fc4e5f/attachment.sig>