Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:31:24 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: NO_OPTIONS_SORT makes options disappear Message-ID: <20120604223124.GJ73254@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <4FCD3688.7070000@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FCD1EC7.9060905@FreeBSD.org> <20120604222215.GH73254@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FCD3688.7070000@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--iRjOs3ViPWHdlw/I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 03:28:24PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 >=20 > On 06/04/2012 15:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >> The new options framework sorts all of the options by default > >> before presenting them to the user. I have mixed feelings about > >> this, however there is supposed to be a workaround for those of > >> us who have grouped the options for our ports into logical > >> chunks, NO_OPTIONS_SORT. > >>=20 > >> Today I tried defining that in my BIND ports so that users would > >> not be confused during the upgrade process, and got this: > >>=20 > >> make config =3D=3D=3D> No options to configure > >>=20 > >> I tried defining NO_OPTIONS_SORT both before and after including=20 > >> bsd.port.pre.mk, got the same result for both. >=20 > > Have you tried keeping you port as-is >=20 > I left it as-is since I don't have time to do anything else. This > results in a bad user experience since the options are now all sorted > into alphabetical order instead of the meaningful groupings that I had > them in. >=20 > > or converting it ? >=20 > I don't have time to do that right now, and this should not be > necessary in order to maintain backwards compatibility with what I > already had. I can accept adding the NO_OPTIONS_SORT knob, but the > fact that adding it causes things to be dramatically more broken than > they already are is a bug. I'll try to come asap with a fix for that >=20 > > Can you send me a diff so that I can have a deeper look tomorrow > > morning GMT+1? >=20 > I described what I did in detail in my OP. Adding NO_OPTIONS_SORT was > the only change I made. >=20 > Doug >=20 > - --=20 >=20 > This .signature sanitized for your protection > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) >=20 > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPzTaIAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEOuUH/2WcSn0Wn8xMoUzhIJBm2x2Z > Axog5WoLoL/uuddijCsAQyQlG4OxYaatMvIPBg2kImqZDdZV0wDvrp/vcg3vngYX > zvq2kpzfc0y8BT01UWi6BNGJXymDHZ0/b8NKv7pYrUWvTLta4Ae8wxtxZciGsAVL > ITMFXygIDhu8KWtWmfakP5bJpwexz+v20M1CoKhBWJ8FuawcicZctOscbUCYn4HE > KK4kYcmO/sb8C5n8aCehJXQbcZX77wftSDUatfNpv8WTxyDPzKpms3SwmfOUIMnd > XSnh4O4eiyIccPk9OCE4EMOmizlJhBxMpgEPp6a0QeAwmWaYA09dTiyhbexXcXQ=3D > =3DFlRt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iRjOs3ViPWHdlw/I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/NNzwACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExIGgCgmdpXszE23OXCev5sOR25tZaP iIkAoJJvRWUvlJ+2uvtJXbBxJKCgMsE5 =0rZk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iRjOs3ViPWHdlw/I--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120604223124.GJ73254>