shells/bash-static fails to package/deinstall cleanly

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:27:42PM +0200, clutton wrote:
> 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.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-ports@freebsd.org/msg52457.html
> 
> I thought that after OPTIONS framework was introduced all -x11 and
> similar ports are legacy. Am I wrong?
> 
Not yet the OPTIONS framework is just the first step, the second step is killing
pkg_install and the last step bringing in subpackages/flavours :)

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131226/505aabf5/attachment.sig>