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 -with_rtf.
> >
> > Why wouldn't the user use "-rtf" ?
> > That was the purpose of our implementing variant negation to being
> > with. I assumed "with_" / "without_" was implied/assumed based on +
> > or -.
>
> And moreover, "default_variants" allows for the variant to be explicit:
>
> default_variants rtf
>
> variant rtf {
> }
>
> Then a user can disable RTF support with -rtf. If you want RTF to
> require explicit enabling, remove the default_variants and the user
> will have to use +rtf.
i think that +rtf and -rtf is nice and brief, though it seems that +
means customize and - means don't customize, not present and lacking,
respectively; i think it's misleading in a way. this is why flags such
as +no_rtf might exist and why ports with rtf support by default won't
have a +rtf variant. it also makes it difficult to use variants.conf to
specify something like "i want ssl port wherever possible."
/mike
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
