El 24 jun. 2016 9:36 p. m., "Yuri" <y...@rawbw.com> escribió: > > On 06/23/2016 14:54, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote: >> >> Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you want to do that? I don't >> see how that particular combination of options would introduce a dependence >> that neither of them alone would. > > > In this particular case, as I figured, this isn't actually necessary. But it could be necessary in general, when, say, only in GUI there are some messages to translate, or only GUI needs python. > > >> And then, why not include port.options.mk? Then you could explicitly check >> for both options being set. > > > > You are right. But without including port.options.mk Makefile looks so much more elegant. Several times I received e-mails asking to remove port.options.mk inclusion to highten the degree of elegance this way. -)
Fair enough! I am not one to argue against elegance ;-) but as Mathieu said: magic only goes so far! Good luck! > > > Yuri > Fernando _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
