From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 2 12:57:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099C8106566C; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:57:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rflynn@acsalaska.net) Received: from mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (rachie.is-a-geek.net [66.230.99.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3978FC08; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:57:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (squeeze.lan.rachie.is-a-geek.net [192.168.2.30]) by mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA34C7E850; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:57:13 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <4FCA0DA6.7070502@acsalaska.net> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:57:10 +0200 From: Mel Flynn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin , Chris Rees References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:57:17 -0000 On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: > All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: > http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for "zero or 1" multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for "if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0" The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Same for mail server (3 choices). While these ports do not necessarily conflict, there can be conflicting entries and as such I prefer to narrow the choice to one. Makes more sense too for the practical case. I currently have this implemented in old options, but I don't see a clear way to do this with optionsng as the minimum for multi options is 1. I can of course present these as they are now, 3-4 simple options with custom logic. -- Mel