Daniel J. Luke
dluke at geeklair.net
Sun Mar 18 07:35:53 PDT 2007
On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Stefan Bruda wrote:
> It is a pitty in my opinion, as is also the lack of a "pretend" flag
> (always nice for me to know in advance what is gonna happen). These
> two are the main features I would personally like to have in the
> system. Anyway, maybe I will become familiar enough with MacPorts to
> be able to contribute to the code, till then I will keep my mouth
I'm sure many other people would be happy to have those contributions
in MacPorts too!
>> Nope (although you could probably hack it in if you wanted). The
>> problem being that some ports won't compile correctly with certain
>> -j or CFLAG options.
> I am not that keen on it, though a logical solution would be to
> provide for a global value of these flags and then a way to override
> the values on a per-port basis.
True, but we tend to take a more conservative approach to limit
potential support requests. The way things are now, the end user
can't buy mistake set bogus values here and mess things up in a way
that the portfile author wouldn't expect.
As much as possible, the goal is to make things 'just work' for the
Daniel J. Luke
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070318/8abf22a6/PGP.bin
More information about the macports-dev