Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:03:51 +0300 From: Pavel Timofeev <timp87@gmail.com> To: koobs@freebsd.org Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>, sunpoet@freebsd.org, Mathieu <mat@freebsd.org>, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org>, timur@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r390526 - head/ftp/curl Message-ID: <CAAoTqfv7ay8Ni%2BFpwAqUxpqyZh-iNaQXj2SJHm_u79-Bu5Ccwg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <558B5E47.6000409@FreeBSD.org> References: <201506250022.t5P0MURx089077@svn.freebsd.org> <558B5E47.6000409@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! I partly agree with @koobs, back in days I'd prefer to use OPTIONS_RADIO instead of OPTIONS_SINGLE (FOO_NONE). But when I was adding a choice to www/squid, I saw an example in ports/Mk/Uses/gssapi.mk with OPTIONS_SINGLE. And I'm not sure if OPTIONS_RADIO has an ability to say that nothing is chosen. At the other hand in the rest of the world 'radio buttons' allow you to select only one option, not none of them. So it is normal if one of the options is NO_PETS among CAT, DOG and PARROT. But we, in ports tree, don't call it radio buttons. We call 'radio buttons' something different. That's a mess I think. I can misunderstand something, sorry! P.S. Now I'd prefer to delete an old OPTIONS_RADIO macro then rename OPTIONS_SINGLE to OPTIONS_RADIO. 2015-06-25 4:49 GMT+03:00 Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org>: > On 25/06/2015 10:22 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> Author: bdrewery >> Date: Thu Jun 25 00:22:29 2015 >> New Revision: 390526 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/390526 >> >> Log: >> Be more explicit about which setting to use. >> >> PR: 200555 >> >> Modified: >> head/ftp/curl/Makefile >> >> Modified: head/ftp/curl/Makefile >> ============================================================================== >> --- head/ftp/curl/Makefile Thu Jun 25 00:17:08 2015 (r390525) >> +++ head/ftp/curl/Makefile Thu Jun 25 00:22:29 2015 (r390526) >> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ IGNORE= only supports LIBSSH2 with Open >> (!defined(WITH_OPENSSL_BASE) && exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libcrypto.so)) || \ >> (defined(OPENSSL_PORT) && ${OPENSSL_PORT} == "security/libressl")) >> .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MGSSAPI_BASE} >> -IGNORE= GSSAPI_BASE is set, which is not compatible with OpenSSL/LibreSSL from ports. Unset it or do not use ports SSL. >> +IGNORE= GSSAPI_BASE is set, which is not compatible with OpenSSL/LibreSSL from ports. Set GSSAPI_NONE or do not use ports SSL. >> .endif >> .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MTLS_SRP} && defined(OPENSSL_PORT) && ${OPENSSL_PORT} == "security/libressl" >> IGNORE= unsupported TLS-SRP in LibreSSL >> > > This is not aimed at you Bryan (or at anyone specifically), this commit > just reminded me. > > I'm a HUGE non-fan of GSSAPI_NONE (or any FOO_NONE)as an option in the > following ports as an explicit option to disable something. > > dns/bind910 > dns/bind99 > ftp/curl > mail/dovecot2 > net/samba36 > www/squid > > We have OPTIONS_RADIO for supporting none or one enabled value from a > set of alternatives. That is, if none of KRB5, MIT or BASE are set, > kerberos should be disabled, as it is logically equivalent to setting > FOO_NONE, without needing an explicit option to say so. > > If we cant currently check/test whether no option from a set is enabled, > and that would be useful, we should add it to bsd.port.options.mk. I > imagine this is trivial (for someone who is shell savvy). > > It would be nice to be able to do something like: > > .if empty(OPTIONS_RADIO_FOO) > do something > .endif > > Alternatively, each of MIT, KRB5 and BASE options could: > > GSSAPI_FOO_CONFIGURE_OFF=--without-gssapi > > If we dont like duplicate configure args, then we should be able to test > for no enabled options as above. > > At a minimum these FOO_NONE options are unnecessary/redundant, worse its > a POLA violation and a clunky user experience, requiring a user to turn > on an option to disable something. > > I got bitten with this 'you must choose one of FOO' during a curl > upgrade'. It took me a while to figure out wth was going on. > > Maintainers of above ports are CC'd here > > > ./koobs > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAAoTqfv7ay8Ni%2BFpwAqUxpqyZh-iNaQXj2SJHm_u79-Bu5Ccwg>