On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:59:03 -0400 Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote:
> On 10 October 2012 06:49, Michael Gmelin <free...@grem.de> wrote: > ... > I had that turned on by default to make sure > > the port behaves exactly like it did before conversion to OptionsNG > > (it's not my lawn, you know). > > Hehe, this is good thing. Normally you want to try to replicate > existing behavior. > > > The committer changed that to be off by > > default, since this is a better solution for package building and I > > agree with him. > > But... in this case the previous behavior was "buggy" so it had to be > changed. That's why I agree with him, it was the right thing to do. Ah.. I just realized "he" was you, so yes, I totally agree with you that this was the right thing to do and as a committer you're in the position to do that. It wouldn't have been appropriate to change this myself though, since I claimed to do a conversion, which wouldn't have been correct otherwise. > > > Also note that there are a lot of ports that use either techniques > > for auto detection (e.g. checking for the existence of libraries to > > bring in functionality) and that those should be covered as well - > > simply not allowing auto detection will massively reduce > > functionality, so using an OPTION to allow it might be the way to > > go. I think AUTODETECT might > > I agree. > > > P.S. I never did properly thank you for all those OptionsNG PRs. Most > of them went in without any changes at all, which is unusual. Thanks! > > You're welcome :) -- Michael Gmelin _______________________________________________ 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"
