From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 8 13:31:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0CA106566C for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:31:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com) Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797ED8FC16 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KmeT1j00927AodY53pXago; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0000 Received: from kirby.cyberbotx.com ([69.244.146.119]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KpXZ1j00t2anbQt3fpXarg; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0000 Message-ID: <4FD1FEB5.4000703@cyberbotx.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:31:33 -0400 From: Naram Qashat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120603 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20120603184448.GI92976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120603184448.GI92976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:31:40 -0000 On 06/03/12 14:44, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi, > > The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems > directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. > > Some issue seems still to be there regarding backward compatibility but I > haven't been able to reproduced any of the one that are supposed to be left. > > The porters handbook has been updated and the new option framework is well > documented (thank you crees) > > Please convert as soon as possible your ports to the new framework. As you may > already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual > options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is > simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it > make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more > accurate than a technical one, users might not know the technical details but > they know what functionnality they do want. > > All the complaints I found in the past concerning the old framework have been > addressed in the new one, you can have mutually exclusive options, checked by > the framework, you can have group options, you can have 0 or only 1 option among > N or 0 or N options among M. be creative, most of the use case should be doable. > > for 3 special options: DOCS, EXAMPLES and NLS, you do not need to activate them > in OPTIONS_DEFAULT as the framework already activate them. you also do not need > to add them to OPTIONS_DEFINE if you only use one of them, do avoid having the > dialog UI to show up. > > DOCS in long term maybe used to replace NOPORTDOCS (NOPORTDOCS is defined has a > backward compatibility if as a user you remove it). > > Same goes for EXAMPLES -> NOPORTEXAMPLES > and NLS -> WITHOUT_NLS > > In my concern the priority is: > > 1/ convert all the old OPTIONS: > Here is a list of them > http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/ConvertingToOptionsNG > > 2/ replace all the knobs by optionsNg options (replacing the KNOBS file by > bsd.options.desc > > regards, > Bapt So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? Thanks, Naram Qashat