On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:25:48PM -0400, Josh Carroll wrote:
> > Seems like a rare case where someone would want to re-visit (in this
> > manner) options they have already set. That said, it may come in handy.
>
> Yeah, I figured it can't *hurt* and might come in handy in a few
> circumstances.
> Seems like a rare case where someone would want to re-visit (in this
> manner) options they have already set. That said, it may come in handy.
Yeah, I figured it can't *hurt* and might come in handy in a few circumstances.
> I think "config-recursive-unconditional" would be a better name as it
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0400, Josh Carroll wrote:
> All,
>
> Note: I'm not currently subscribed to ports@, please cc: me on replies.
>
> I was wondering what peoples' thoughts are on a "reconfig-recursive"
> target for ports? Basically, the same as config-recursive, but instead
> of u
All,
Note: I'm not currently subscribed to ports@, please cc: me on replies.
I was wondering what peoples' thoughts are on a "reconfig-recursive"
target for ports? Basically, the same as config-recursive, but instead
of using config-conditional for each dependency, it would use config.
This might
