Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:04:50 +0100 From: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: default OPTIONS aren't the default when BATCH is set Message-ID: <20040313160450.GA3436@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <4053207E.4000000@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040313110145.763.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <4053207E.4000000@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > > >* Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: > > > > > >>There is a workaround while it's not fixed: > >>OPTIONS= SOME_DEFAULT "..." on > >>WITH_SOME_DEFAULT?= yes > > > >That looks bogus to me. The ?= does not make sense for variables > >which are checked for definedness only (?= is the same as = since you > >cannot 'unset' the variable on the commandline) and IMO it is sufficient > >to fix the port's options parser to check for WITHOUT_OPTION_FOO when > >'foo' defaults to 'on'. At least this is how I do it in my ports. > > The whole WITHOUT_* stuff is a misfeature IMHO. What options do I get > when I do > > cd textproc/libxml2; make WITHOUT_PYTHON=yes WITH_SCHEMA=yes > WITH_XMLLINT_HIST=yes May I ask you to forward this to the maintainer of said port? This has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. > (which I have in pkgtools.conf). Now I (and lots of other port users) > are chasing ports that are early adaptors of buggy features. Not very > pleasing. Well, I did not commit these "misfeatures" to bsd.port.mk, and ugliness lies in the eye of the beholder. As a maintainer, I choose what is offered to me by bsd.port.mk and decide which feature is useful enough for me to adopt it. To get back on topic: It is vital that you check for WITHOUT_FOO's definedness when you implement a default-to-on-OPTION. When doing so you can avoid the problem we are discussing here regarding the PACKAGE_BUILDING and BATCH cases. Regarding WITHOUT_: I did not write that we should implement a WITHOUT_ option for every WITH_ knob out there. I am only writing about what needs to be keept in mind _when_ one chooses to adopt OPTIONS. That some ports already implement WITHOUT_ knobs is a matter you should discuss with the respective maintainers, not with me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040313160450.GA3436>