recommended "dependencies?"

[Mike Roberts]

In article <805A178B-2A8A-466C-A1D9-97243190A88E at macports.org>,
 Landon Fuller <landonf at macports.org> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2007, at 14:21, Landon Fuller wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 00:59, Kevin Ballard wrote:
> >
> >> No. it would contain the code that activates the rtf support. If  
> >> the user doesn't want it, they can specify -with_rtf.
> >
> > Why wouldn't the user use "-rtf" ?
> > That was the purpose of our implementing variant negation to being  
> > with. I assumed "with_" / "without_" was implied/assumed based on +  
> > or -.
> 
> And moreover, "default_variants" allows for the variant to be explicit:
> 
> 	default_variants		rtf
> 
> 	variant rtf {
> 	}
> 
> Then a user can disable RTF support with -rtf. If you want RTF to  
> require explicit enabling, remove the default_variants and the user  
> will have to use +rtf.

i think that +rtf and -rtf is nice and brief, though it seems that + 
means customize and - means don't customize, not present and lacking, 
respectively; i think it's misleading in a way. this is why flags such 
as +no_rtf might exist and why ports with rtf support by default won't 
have a +rtf variant. it also makes it difficult to use variants.conf to 
specify something like "i want ssl port wherever possible."

/mike