On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:33:31AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> It just occurred to me that it seems we actually do not support something
> like OPTIONS_SINGLE_AUDIO_${ARCH}, which simplifies my work (please tell
> me if I'm wrong). So all I need is to remember about OPTIONS_EXCLUDE's in
> thi
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:30:55PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:12:41PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > I've cooked something up just now, take a look at the attached diff. I've
> > only barely tested it, but it seems to work for a few of my hand-crafted
> > confi
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:12:41PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> I've cooked something up just now, take a look at the attached diff. I've
> only barely tested it, but it seems to work for a few of my hand-crafted
> configurations. It also handles known options groups (single/multi/etc.),
> te
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:04:51AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Sorry it took time for me to reply, after we last talk about this, I
> thought a lot about this, and while in principe I do like the idea, I have
> a couple of concerns:
>
> 1: this reduces lots of flexibility we now have with t
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:27:08PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:00:37PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Now as I understand old-skool OPTIONS knob support is removed, can we do
> > something about ugliness of newish OPTIONS_DEFINE[_arch]/OPTIONS_
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> > > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax
> > > and now we want to change it again? :-)
> >
> > Yeah, why not? ;-)
> >
> > I've discussed
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax
> > and now we want to change it again? :-)
>
> Yeah, why not? ;-)
>
> I've discussed that idea before
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax
> and now we want to change it again? :-)
Yeah, why not? ;-)
I've discussed that idea before with bapt@ on IRC; there is absolutely
no reasons why we should not use
So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax and
now we want to change it again? :-)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-po
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:00:37PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Now as I understand old-skool OPTIONS knob support is removed, can we do
> something about ugliness of newish OPTIONS_DEFINE[_arch]/OPTIONS_DEFAULT
> [_arch] pair of knobs?
>
> I am thinking about the following synt
Hi there,
Now as I understand old-skool OPTIONS knob support is removed, can we do
something about ugliness of newish OPTIONS_DEFINE[_arch]/OPTIONS_DEFAULT
[_arch] pair of knobs?
I am thinking about the following syntax (using now free-again OPTIONS
knob, instead of several OPTIONS_DEFINE/OPTIONS
11 matches
Mail list logo
