In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kevin Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems extremely verbose to me.
i don't think the verbosity is the issue, it's what he's trying to
communicate. besides, expressiveness can be optimized and i doubt this
would be the first cumbersome idiom introduced
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Landon Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2007, at 14:21, Landon Fuller wrote:
On Feb 13, 2007, at 00:59, Kevin Ballard wrote:
No. it would contain the code that activates the rtf support. If
the user doesn't want it, they can specify
On 13 Feb 2007, at 01:04, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 12, 2007, at 11:12, Mike Roberts wrote:
Then, I would say that you should have either an +rtf variant, or a
+no_rtf variant, but never both. (What would it do if you did not
specify any variant?)
specifying both would have to be
On Feb 13, 2007, at 00:59, Kevin Ballard wrote:
No. it would contain the code that activates the rtf support. If
the user doesn't want it, they can specify -with_rtf.
Why wouldn't the user use -rtf ?
That was the purpose of our implementing variant negation to being
with. I assumed with_
On Feb 13, 2007, at 14:21, Landon Fuller wrote:
On Feb 13, 2007, at 00:59, Kevin Ballard wrote:
No. it would contain the code that activates the rtf support. If
the user doesn't want it, they can specify -with_rtf.
Why wouldn't the user use -rtf ?
That was the purpose of our implementing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ryan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand this idea. Some ports don't have variants and
don't need any. Say, the readline port. It has no variants. It
depends on no other packages. Its configure line features no --with-
foo or --enable-foo
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ryan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I would say that a variant name should not include a hyphen.
That's problematic. Use an underscore if you want to separate words.
thanks. i'll keep that in mind.
Then, I would say that you should have either an
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Randall Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back (about 6 months ago I think), I proposed a standard for
naming variants.
As I recall, there seemed to be a consensus that I had a good idea,
but that details needed to be worked out. I (and I think a
I don't think portfiles that don't represent concrete apps or libraries
is
a good id, and I'm not aware that this has been done before. I would
think it would create as many problems as it would solve.
fair enough, though i think the functionality is important, particularly
for selecting
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Duling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think I fully understood what it is you are trying to do with
variants because I didn't fully understand the example you gave earlier,
so my comments were limited. I may not be one that would have an answer
anyway,
On Feb 12, 2007, at 11:33, Mike Roberts wrote:
i think it's an excellent idea. though, i think that there should be a
default signature if none is specified, so that there's no
ambiguity in
variant signatures. i suppose the result is that there would be no
variant-less ports. i think this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel J. Luke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do they need to be there at build time, or will lyx just use them if
they appear in the future?
they're run-time dependencies. certain menu items either do nothing or
give an error message if a dependent port isn't
We don't need two variants. We just need one variant, and a default
behaviour. Add the variant if you want that, leave it off if you
don't. And if you want to explicitly say you don't want the variant,
the -rtf syntax says just that.
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Mike Roberts wrote:
that
Ryan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 9:07
AM -0800 wrote:
could one use variants to implement an abstract port? for example,
could
i write a port called abstract/tex-previewer and have different
variants
to select dependencies for aqua/TeXShop and x11/advi?
A while back (about 6 months ago I think), I proposed a standard for
naming variants.
As I recall, there seemed to be a consensus that I had a good idea,
but that details needed to be worked out. I (and I think a couple of
others) began using variants as I proposed, although I notice that
is there a way to specify recommended ports? for example, say i'm
maintaining the lyx port. the latex2rtf port and a dvi previewer are
useful for certain lyx features to work but are technically unnecessary
for minimal lyx functionality.
/mike
___
On Feb 8, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Mike Roberts wrote:
is there a way to specify recommended ports? for example, say i'm
maintaining the lyx port. the latex2rtf port and a dvi previewer are
useful for certain lyx features to work but are technically
unnecessary
for minimal lyx functionality.
do
how about variants?
On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:47 PM, Mike Roberts wrote:
is there a way to specify recommended ports? for example, say i'm
maintaining the lyx port. the latex2rtf port and a dvi previewer are
useful for certain lyx features to work but are technically
unnecessary
for minimal lyx
18 matches
Mail list logo
