Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:47:30 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> Cc: Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r517341 - head/x11-wm/e16 Message-ID: <20191113114730.GA51261@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20191113105755.cniyccipokqjehjr@ptrcrt.ch> References: <201911121700.xACH0fpg045907@repo.freebsd.org> <20191113092534.GA61113@urd.tobik.me> <20191113093405.GB34207@FreeBSD.org> <20191113105755.cniyccipokqjehjr@ptrcrt.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:57:55AM +0000, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On Nov 13 2019, 09:34 UTC, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > ... > >The entire "rework OPTIONS" code is a mess and should be fixed for > >good. Perhaps Pietro might want to find an extra pair of eyes to review > >his work prior to committing, or at leaset rehash > >/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.options.mk. > > I'm not exactly sure which part of the OPTIONS you find a "mess", and > even less sure how you'd fix it. I haven't found a more direct way to > specify logical dependecies between two RADIO groups, if that's what > you don't like. OK, now, after you've mentioned dependencies between two RADIO groups, it starts to make more sense (albeit I still get lost in those IGNORE's and their reasons; IMPLIES/PREVENTS would be more clear). Regardless, it would be nice to have this explained in the commit log instead of vague and useless "rework OPTIONS". That said, resulting complexity and poor readability often indicate an overengineered solution. Not that I'm implying or insisting on taking any action, but perhaps two codependent RADIO groups is a little too much? :-) ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191113114730.GA51261>