Ted is right. I do know about -M but I use it so frequently that I always have to find it in the man. pkg_info could should be able to display this info like pkg_info cups. That makes intuitive sense to me and I think others as well.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:00:20PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 04:40:23PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > > >> These are too easy to miss at some point after installation. > > >> What does anyone think about doing something like this? > > > > > > Blech > > > > > > The issue is mostly to have less stuff displayed during installation, > > > which > > > is not yet done, but should be. > > > > The problem wasn't that I missed the message during installation, it's > > that I couldn't find the message 8 months later. Now that I know > > about -M, I can probably remember to use it, but it's a lot less > > intuitive than plain pkg_info providing me with what I'd consider some > > pretty critical information about the port. > > Wow. > > Like, gcc tells you to use -W -Wall if you forget to mention them ? > Or sh tells you to use set -e whenever it runs a shell script ? >
