On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 15:24:28 +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
>
> I converted security/libpreludedb to OptionsNG yesterday and
> left in most of the des
On 7 October 2012 09:24, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
...
FWIW, I just want to say, I completely agree with the content of your email.
It isn't always clear
First, it was totally inappropriate for eadler to change your option
descriptions. I've fixed it for you.
More below.
On 10/07/2012 06:24, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:24:28 +0200
Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
>
> I converted security/libpreludedb to OptionsNG yesterday and
> left in most of the descrip
On, Sun Oct 07, 2012, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
That's not entirely true. They can provide a fallback, if the port
maintainer forgot to add a meaningful d
Hi,
This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
I converted security/libpreludedb to OptionsNG yesterday and
left in most of the descriptions and therefore overrode them. I did
that for a good reason, since
