...snip... > > I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work > for 80% of the ports you are likely to install, so they are > not a safe way to escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, > could someone give me a usecase for them? > > Cheers, > Uli > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
A use case being that we provide low electrical powered firewalls/servers for small businesses, they use 1-4G compact flash to hold the OS & ports depending on purpose. Users use the services provided by servers; administrators are hands-off after the primary build. The command line isn't used and hence documentation isn't required. Anything non-critical to the functioning of the server is removed. Ideally we'd like NOPORTDOCS and other directives to work consistently across all ports, rather than, as we do now, repackage the packages without the things unnecessary to our mission, like: examples, doc... I take your point Mel, we should file PR's. I recall some ports failed to build the package if doc wasn't included, which resulted in our time-pressed solution above. Dewayne. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
