2010/9/9 Alexey Dokuchaev <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:30:51AM +0000, David E. O'Brien wrote: >> obrien 2010-09-10 02:30:51 UTC >> >> FreeBSD ports repository >> >> Modified files: >> shells/bash Makefile >> Added files: >> shells/bash options >> Log: >> Add OPTIONS processing. > > Can you please explain why do you employ these rather obscure > constructions instead of cleanly and naturally defining OPTIONS within > the Makefile, like it is normally done in other ports?
editors/vim is even worse in this respect. Not only are the options hidden in a similar fashion, the defaults are completely unsuitable for 2010 - who uses GTK 1.2 anymore?? IMHO, this reflects very poorly on the whole FreeBSD project, because this is an extremely common port and likely one of the first things people will look for when thinking about switching from another UNIX-like OS. Anyone who either does a standard "make install clean" from ports or just installs the package off a release CD ends up with a GUI that's pretty much a poor imitation of Windows 95. Unless you read the Makefile (something newbies aren't going to think to do) there is no indication anything else is supported/possible. -- Rob Farmer > > ./danfe > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
