On 07/26/2011 10:00, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Normally, I 100% agree with Doug. But we're not only talking about ruby
> here, we're talking about rails. I hard a hard time naming gems that
> don't do this crap. I almost replied yesterday and said add an option,
> but IMHO either way is fine, and not worth diddling over.
There are at least 3 possible ways to handle this situation:
1. Force the dependency
2a. Have an OPTION and error out if the user chooses WITHOUT_FOO and foo
is installed.
2b. Have an OPTION and patch the distfiles if the user chooses
WITHOUT_FOO and foo is installed.
Personally I don't care which option is used, but IMO the problem of
ports silently growing dependencies based on what is installed on the
system has to be solved.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
