On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:00:34 -0700 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Kevin Oberman <kob6...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > While I think makefile-options is the way to go, I should also > > point out that for the specific case of emacs and X11, it is > > not used due to the very large differences. Other "variants" > > are handled via options, but there are separate emacs and > > emacs-nox11 ports. > > ... > > The port maintainer/developer has to make a call as to which > > approach is more practical, but I suspect portmgr@ will press > > for maximum use of makefile-options.
Unfortunately we can't force anyone to use OPTIONS. Yet. I hope things will change once we get OPTIONS-NG in, since the new framework will address (AFAIK) all the objections people have against our current OPTIONS. > One reason to use a slave port instead of an option is so that both > configurations will be routinely build-tested, and corresponding > packages made available. Any one port can have only one "default" > configuration. Yes. We're lagging behind in this area. With the new OPTIONS and the next iteration of pkgNG, this will be hopefully solved. BUt it will take at least a year. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
