On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:51:56AM -0800, Yuri wrote:
> On 11/22/17 08:59, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Looking to the future, is the port an obviously candidate for FLAVORS or
> > multi-packages? If so, they you probably want to keep the current
> > plist. If not, then I guess it depends on your
On 11/22/17 08:59, Brooks Davis wrote:
Looking to the future, is the port an obviously candidate for FLAVORS or
multi-packages? If so, they you probably want to keep the current
plist. If not, then I guess it depends on your confidence that the port
will remain well behaved.
Flavors and
On 11/22/17 16:43, Chris H wrote:
Maybe I'm just missing something... But doesn't
$ make plist
give it to you?
Apologies if I'm simply missing the obvious. :)
$ make makeplist
doesn't know which files depend on which options.
Yuri
___
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:04:22 -0800 said
While trying to update math/vtk, I found that its plist is very complex,
with many optional files, some files depending on multiple port options.
But it is a well-behaved project, and it only installs the correct file
set. It is much
Le mer. 22 nov. 17 à 17:59:39 +0100, Brooks Davis
écrivait :
> Looking to the future, is the port an obviously candidate for FLAVORS or
> multi-packages? If so, they you probably want to keep the current
> plist. If not, then I guess it depends on your confidence that the
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:04:22PM -0800, Yuri wrote:
> While trying to update math/vtk, I found that its plist is very complex,
> with many optional files, some files depending on multiple port options.
>
> But it is a well-behaved project, and it only installs the correct file
> set. It is
While trying to update math/vtk, I found that its plist is very complex,
with many optional files, some files depending on multiple port options.
But it is a well-behaved project, and it only installs the correct file
set. It is much easier to just trust it.
So I am suggesting