On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:13:58 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Florent Thoumie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:08:03 +0100
"Florent Thoumie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Olafur Osvaldsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is something the PR responsible introduced in his original
patch...
It's still present in your version. Anyway, I'm not blaming anyone,
just pointing out what I think is a mistake.
So this is not for the user but for the port?
I'll do a swap on the tree for it, because I'm sure there are more
ports doing something like:
.ifndef(NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES)
......
.endif
I was talking to itectu@ about this, and figured it would be better in
Mk/bsd.port.mk.
The general rule of thumb is: if it doesn't begin with WITH_ or
WITHOUT_, it's not user-settable. NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES is used for
ports using imake that don't understand the install.man target.
/me thought that was the USE_ vs WITH(OUT)?_ difference.
NO* is supposed to be user settable right ?
While I am here, have you gotten my email about scons?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2008-July/153324.html
----------------------------------------------
# pkg_info -IX scons
scons-0.98.5 A build tool alternative to make
# ls /usr/local/man/man1/ | grep scons
scons-time.1.gz
scons.1.gz
sconsign.1.gz
# pkg_delete -f scons-0.98.5
# ls /usr/local/man/man1/ | grep scons
[...empty...]
# cd /usr/ports/devel/scons
# grep NO Makefile
.if !defined (NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES)
# make NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES=yes install
[...]
Installed SCons scripts into /usr/local/bin
Installed SCons man pages into /usr/local/man/man1
===> Registering installation for scons-0.98.5
# ls /usr/local/man/man1/ | grep scons
scons-time.1
scons.1
sconsign.1
# pkg_delete -f scons-0.98.5
# ls /usr/local/man/man1/ | grep scons
scons-time.1
scons.1
sconsign.1
----------------------------------------------
The scons plist is broke with NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES.
Cheers,
Mezz
Now of course there are exceptions (usually for no good reason IMHO).
The likes of NOPORTDOCS/NOPORTEXAMPLES/... could be changed to
WITHOUT_DOCS/WITHOUT_EXAMPLES, it's just waiting for somebody to do
the work.
Heh, maybe, I kind of feel like it will get reject as a style(9) change.
I'm all for it though, not saying I'm going to do it though.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
