Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > I always assumed there was a good reason for not allowing that.
> > is there not a "WITH_FOO" or "WITHOUT_FOO" for every MK_FOO?
>
> Which takes precedence? Using make MK_FOO=no allows forcing it off
WITHOUT_ wins this was topic of long discussion - I guess back in 2014
On 5/29/2016 8:03 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 20/05/2016 5:41 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> Author: bdrewery
>> Date: Thu May 19 21:41:35 2016
>> New Revision: 300233
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300233
> I always assumed there was a good reason for not allowing that.
> is th
On 20/05/2016 5:41 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Author: bdrewery
Date: Thu May 19 21:41:35 2016
New Revision: 300233
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300233
I always assumed there was a good reason for not allowing that.
is there not a "WITH_FOO" or "WITHOUT_FOO" for every MK_FOO?
L
Author: bdrewery
Date: Thu May 19 21:41:35 2016
New Revision: 300233
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300233
Log:
Allow MK_ overrides.
This is a direct commit to stable.
This was done in head in r264661 and is needed to force certain options off
for ports.
PR:
