[CFT] New dialog for ports

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:07:15AM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if it is worth to let the question to install dialog4ports.
> >
> > I mean dialog4ports being mandatory you should just be installed directly
> > doesn't it?
> >
> > anyone have an opinion about this?
> >
> > I will remove the question on 27/03 if I got more please do than please
> > don't at
> > that time.
> 
> The question does lead one to think it's optional. If it's not optional,
> then there shouldn't be a prompt. I think it should be optional. IMHO, the
> requirement being mandator violates POLA, as does the prompt. These are
> questions that should have been answered before it was committed.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 

Why would dialog4ports be optional, the dialog(1) from base isn't able to
reflect what the new option framwork does, keeping it and both code to have
both, looks like a non sense to me.

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/20130320/cd61e0b1/attachment.sig>