Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:11:39 +0100 From: "Pav Lucistnik" <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> Subject: Re: There is no way to know what port options mean (in general) Message-ID: <20080326141048.M53995@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080326133611.GD23226@atarininja.org> References: <20080326053328.GA29448@duncan.reilly.home> <20080326093858.GA78756@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20080326133611.GD23226@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:36:11 -0400, Wesley Shields wrote
> While, it has to go somewhere and as a maintainer I have no problem
> printing out a description of each option inside a custom target.
> What's important is that there be some consistency in what that
> target is called. Even better would be to provide a framework to
> ease the work maintainers have to do. I envision the following:
>
> - For each available option have a variable called DESC_$FOO which
> is a string which describes that option in detail. - Whatever that
> target is called should be in bsd.ports.mk and output the contents
> of DESC_$FOO.
I think best it would be to extend the OPTIONS syntax from five to six fields,
adding a long description field. Two issues
1) what about backward compatibility with existing ports
2) is dialog(1) able to display such a text field?
--
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080326141048.M53995>