Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:10:30 -0400 From: Andy Sparrow <spadger@best.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Andy Sparrow <spadger@best.com>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 'make menuconfig' or how WITH_* can be good for you [patch] Message-ID: <20020626141030.32EF33E30@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Message from Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> of "Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:47:40 %2B0200." <20020625154740.A55185@phoenix.dmnstech.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1765863108P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > First of all: Thanks for the feedback - even if I do not agree with all of it, > I *do* appreciate it. You're welcome - I don't object as such to what you're trying to achieve, it's just that it doesn't fit in with the way I prefer to update my system, which is preferably unattended, with intervention to fix any breakage.. :) Actually, a large part of the point of my email was not to disagree with you, but rather to publicize the existance of the 'Makefile.local' hooks in the ports system, mainly because I sat down some time ago to frob in such a mechanism for my own purposes, only to discover to my surprise that a hitherto unsuspected and perfectly servicable implementation already existed in the standard Make tree... I wondered how many other people had not suspected that it existed yet. Is it documented anywhere? > > Hmm. Actually, if you're only trying to avoid having to type in options on the > > command line every time you (re)build the package, I don't see the need for > > this at all. > > This is not the entire point. The idea is to > - Normalize information, so it is possible to make tools that work with the > build options > - Document what each option does. This is far from obvious in many cases. > - Decrease the amount of knowledge necessary to use this. OK, all good. I'd suggest that the port authors might be usefully imposed upon to document the build options slightly more verbosely, too... :) > This does the same as Makefile.options; the name difference is because I did > not want to overwrite anything Check. > > > > No. Just make menuconfig default except when BATCH or > > > > PARALLEL_PACKAGE_BUILDING defined. > > > > > > That is OK. > > > > Please, please, do not, at least not without providing a global switch so that > > they can be disabled across the board. > > Requirement noted in my requirements list for this project. Thanks. > > I understand that the RO FS is a requirement which is somewhat awkward to > > work around, but doesn't it seem tantalising that Makefile.local otherwise > > does everything that you want and without popping up irritating semi-GUI > > dialogs? > > Instead, it does it by forcing me to run an irritating text editor Sorry, I can't help you with your choice of editor, I foreswore *those* religious arguments a long time ago... :-> Seriously though, your point is taken. Personally, I'm happy to set this once for ports that don't build with the defaults I want, and leave it alone after that. It does take a bit of digging around however, and who could object to better documentation? > after > having read through an irritating Makefile and a set of irritating (or > possible non-existing) documentation for the package that is being ported. > ;-) > > In short: Makefile.local does not do what I want - namely, provide me with > easy access to setting options, without having to use a lot of time to study > the package beforehand. The combination of the options file and > Makefile.local allows me to do this, but then I might as well use the CUA > interface (which I find fairly convenient, but opinions differ.) My view is that I just don't want it popping up for every 10th port when I'm leaving it unattended to (re)build the ports, because it always does this the instant I stop watching it... :) I'd actually like a mechanism whereby I could provide information ahead of time for those ports which otherwise will pop up the CUA (e.g. Ghostscript), when I'm simply upgrading the port. If your suggestions will provide this too, then even better :) Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AS --==_Exmh_-1765863108P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE9GctVPHh895bDXeQRAq9mAJ4jfY0rQe7Mxu667Es92nPMlDvkHACgwVsa +naxqucJtum4UEnVTYkiY5U= =sm19 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1765863108P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020626141030.32EF33E30>