-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Pazarena wrote: > Sahil Tandon wrote: >> [mail/dspam maintainer Cc:'d] >> >> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:46:04 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >> >>> 2010/7/13 Sahil Tandon <sa...@freebsd.org>: >>>> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 21:28:56 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> Yes sometime I'm nasty with people, I'm sorry about that but when I >>> saw this port I just didn't understand. >> >> What did you not understand? >> >>> I apologize for my english. >> >> No apology needed, as that is not the problem here. > > my own ports confusion (in general) is that in some ports > you use a "-Dxxxxxx" to define a required (or not required) option > while in others (at least dspam) you use WITHOUT_xxx or WITH_xxx=1. > It would be nice if all ports has the same standard of definitions. > > Or... am I confused?
I don't know of any ports that use -Dxxx to specify options at the port level. If the port Makefile uses an "OPTIONS=" variable, then it will use WITH_xxx and WITHOUT_xxx to check the option values. You can also use WITH_xxx and WITHOUT_xxx checks without defining OPTIONS. It's possible that a port Makefile could do something like this: .if defined(WITH_FOOBAR) CFLAGS+= -DHAVE_FOOBAR_H .endif In this case, the -Dxxx option is specific to the application configuration and/or build system, but not part of the ports infrastructure. Hope that helps, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFMPeoB0sRouByUApARAib8AKCxHFtzNdvWmptZRiyjTY/BD39nNQCgpgnB hbE7yT1lBq5OrbwIgaCifYA= =uIbz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
