On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Stefan Bruda wrote:
It is a pitty in my opinion, as is also the lack of a "pretend" flag (always nice for me to know in advance what is gonna happen). These two are the main features I would personally like to have in the system. Anyway, maybe I will become familiar enough with MacPorts to be able to contribute to the code, till then I will keep my mouth shut.
I'm sure many other people would be happy to have those contributions in MacPorts too!
Nope (although you could probably hack it in if you wanted). The problem being that some ports won't compile correctly with certain -j or CFLAG options.I am not that keen on it, though a logical solution would be to provide for a global value of these flags and then a way to override the values on a per-port basis.
True, but we tend to take a more conservative approach to limit potential support requests. The way things are now, the end user can't buy mistake set bogus values here and mess things up in a way that the portfile author wouldn't expect.
As much as possible, the goal is to make things 'just work' for the end user.
-- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
