On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:58:35 -0500 Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ed to take exception to that. My claim (and I have the messages > in which I made it) is that the setting of options needed these > changes: > > (1) To move the time that they need to be set, from ports compile > time to system install time, and > > ... > I think (I may be wrong, correct me if I am) that you were taking > exception, above, to my first point, right? You may correct me on > that, but on whether or not it will actually succeed in this is what > all this discussion is about. I did not bring this up without > bringing the idea past local friends, and defending it there, so I > think I can do that. Do i need to requote all of my arguments about > that here Of course I've read them. They are about dependencies, but port options are also about the internals of ports. Even if all dependency management were take out of port options, it wouldn't have a significant impact on the number of ports that use port options. > ... they will 100% move the work from > ports build-time to system install-time. This is pretty simple to > prove, so I can't follow your assertion, If it is pretty simple to prove, you wont mind telling me how your system could determine at system install time, whether I will want squid built with AUFS support - even if I don't know much about squid it the time. It's a simple question. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
