lldb ...

[Lawrence Velázquez]

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:17 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As a side-thought: it shouldn't be particularly difficult to implement a "base" feature which defines a set of PortGroups to be included by default by every port, if such a thing doesn't already exist.

As Josh has said previously, this is called "base".

> I know there's been talk about making at least parts of "base" updateable as a port; this could be an easy alternative.

If our release process is too cumbersome and infrequent, we should change that. I don't see reason to divide base's functionality more than it already is.

And I would definitely not want any security-related functionality to be implemented in a portgroup, which is immediately pushed to all users.

vq
Sent from my iPhone