On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
> I've just been looking at devel/rubygem-multi_json and was
> perplexed by how it wasn't saving my options.
>
> It seems that how the new port options infrastructure determines
> where to load and store its configu
I've just been looking at devel/rubygem-multi_json and was
perplexed by how it wasn't saving my options.
It seems that how the new port options infrastructure determines
where to load and store its configured options from is quite
flaky and breaks with anything that amends PKGNAMEPREFI
On 6 October 2012, at 06:32, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 6 October 2012 01:01, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I just converted a port over to the new options structure and have a few
>> observations. I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the
>> structure as I didn't have the time to get
On 6 October 2012 01:01, Doug Hardie wrote:
> I just converted a port over to the new options structure and have a few
> observations. I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the
> structure as I didn't have the time to get involved. However, a couple
> things came to mind du
06.10.2012 13:39, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> 06.10.2012 12:13, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
>>
>>> My first proposition for syntax was:
>>> .if !empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
>>> .endif
>>>
>>> and
>>> .if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
>>> .en
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 06.10.2012 12:13, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
>
> > My first proposition for syntax was:
> > .if !empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
> > .endif
> >
> > and
> > .if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
> > .endif
>
> I'd prefer this one...
>
> > Lots of
06.10.2012 12:13, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
> My first proposition for syntax was:
> .if !empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
> .endif
>
> and
> .if empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO)
> .endif
I'd prefer this one...
> Lots of people stated they prefered the concise version:
> .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MFOO}
> .endif
>
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:01:45PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
> I just converted a port over to the new options structure and have a few
> observations. I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the
> structure as I didn't have the time to get involved. However, a couple
> things
I just converted a port over to the new options structure and have a few
observations. I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the
structure as I didn't have the time to get involved. However, a couple things
came to mind during the process:
1. The Port handbook is actually
On 15.07.12 23:39, Michael Ranner wrote:
> Cannot compile php53-imap from actual ports tree because of ".if
> !empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL)" in php53/Makefile.ext
>
> Reverting to !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) let the port compile succesfully.
>
> configure: error: This c-client library is built with SSL su
Cannot compile php53-imap from actual ports tree because of ".if
!empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL)" in php53/Makefile.ext
Reverting to !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) let the port compile succesfully.
configure: error: This c-client library is built with SSL support.
Add --with-imap-ssl to your configure
Cannot compile php53-imap from actual ports tree because of ".if
!empty(PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL)" in php53/Makefile.ext
Reverting to !defined(WITHOUT_SSL) let the port compile succesfully.
configure: error: This c-client library is built with SSL support.
Add --with-imap-ssl to your configure
12 matches
Mail list logo
