shells/bash-static fails to package/deinstall cleanly

clutton clutton at
Thu Dec 26 11:27:56 UTC 2013

On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 10:51 +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> 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

I know why, I mean I understand the purpose.

I thought that after OPTIONS framework was introduced all -x11 and
similar ports are legacy. Am I wrong?

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list