2010/10/5 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to query if I built with the defaults or not.
Thus leading to every
David DEMELIER writes:
I will try to do it, I think a replacement of ports.conf with a
make syntax would be better. I will try to do something in the
end of week.
For informational purposes only: if you are not aware of it,
portupgrade has pkgtools.conf.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:12:18PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/5 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to query if I built with the defaults or not.
Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
2010/10/2 David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
What is sufficiently clean ? I wonder what is not clean in the
options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
What is sufficiently clean ? I wonder what is not clean in the
options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
choose a reasonable set of
