Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:57:53 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shells/bash: Options slightly confusing Message-ID: <20130530105753.722eec41@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20130530150955.2916170a@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20130530132742.43455bba@bsd64.grem.de> <51A7413D.9010104@marino.st> <20130530150955.2916170a@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:09:55 +0200
Michael Gmelin articulated:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:08:29 +0200
> John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> wrote:
>
> > On 5/30/2013 13:27, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> > > I assume there are better ways to make this clear. It might even
> > > make sense to have a basic distinction on the ports system level -
> > > options that provide additional features vs. options that
> > > change the (default) behavior of the port.
> >
> > Isn't this implicit in the option default selection? In other
> > words, the fact that it's pre-selected indicates the default
> > behavior of the port, right?
> >
> > Even in the case of a dialog showing where it didn't before isn't a
> > logical reason to think pre-selected options are changes in default
> > behavior, at least not to me.
> >
>
> There's been some debate over the bash port earlier this year, plus it
> has been converted to OptionsNg recently (AFAIK it had no options
> dialog before), therefore my pessimism.
>
> But regardless of default options and updating - if I installed bash
> for the first time and seen an option labeled as "Use directory name
> alone to cd into it" I would assume that bash will behave like this
> after installation without further configuration - in contrast to
> adding the ability to do that ("Support feature").
>
> Maybe it's just me though :)
I agree whole heartily. Unfortunately, all too many ports have
options that all cryptic in nature. There really needs to be better
documentation as to what the options actually do. Perhaps having an
additional file in each port named "OPTDESC", or whatever that would
list each available option for the port and exactly what it did would
prove useful. It certainly would not be a burden as over 90% of the
ports that have either none or just one or two options. Besides, if
some maintainer created a port with 40 or 50 configurable options, then
they certainly can take the time to fully document them.
Just my 2¢.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________
Mollison's Bureaucracy Hypothesis:
If an idea can survive a bureaucratic review
and be implemented it wasn't worth doing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130530105753.722eec41>