On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 10:51 +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 26/12/2013 10:40, clutton wrote: > > The whole port because of STATIC option? > > It'll be better to move this thing to bash port and make it as an > > option. Like zsh maintainer did. > > It's already an option in the bash port. > > You seem somewhat unclear on the concept of slave ports and why they > should exist. The point here is so that users of binary packages can > jut type > > pkg install bash-static > > and get a statically linked version of bash. This is the principal > reason that slave ports exist: so that the same software will be built > with different sets of default options, either for end user convenience > or because some other port depends on having some specific combination > of options. > > Cheers, > > Matthew >
I know why, I mean I understand the purpose. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg52457.html I thought that after OPTIONS framework was introduced all -x11 and similar ports are legacy. Am I wrong? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
