From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 30 13:00:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1028816A423 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5E343D46 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2UD0kOv065128 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:46 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k2UD0ktA065127; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:46 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:46 GMT Message-Id: <200603301300.k2UD0ktA065127@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Frank Laszlo Cc: Subject: Re: ports/95092: Re: [PATCH]: Add knob to allow for mutually exclusive OPTIONS X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Laszlo List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:51 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/95092; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Frank Laszlo To: Clement Laforet Cc: Kris Kennaway , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/95092: Re: [PATCH]: Add knob to allow for mutually exclusive OPTIONS Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:55:23 -0500 Clement Laforet wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:28:28PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> I don't like adding new bsd.port.mk variables for the benefit of only >> 2/14000 ports.. >> > > Many ports don't use OPTIONS because of the lack of mutual exclusive > support. > > clem > That is a good point, I also think that since OPTIONS is the recommended method for adding user interaction to ports, We should expand on its functionality. Perhaps add support for submenu's such as those that are used in sysinstall. This would allow port maintainers to use both checklists and radiolists side by side. -Frank