Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:42:46 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Cc: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: security/gnupg Message-ID: <CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130201103437.5bcae482@scorpio> References: <20130201103437.5bcae482@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 Feb 2013 15:34, "Jerry" <jerry@seibercom.net> wrote: > > Many users have reported in the past that one of the problems with the > ports system is that "OPTIONS" are not properly documented. Usually, if > I spend some time, I can locate it but it is a PIA. However, with the > "security/gnupg" port, I cannot find out specifically what this option > does: > > [ ] STD_SOCKET Use standard socket for agent > > This is off by default. Is there any advantage to activating it and > why isn't it using a standard socket to begin with? > > Maybe if a port had a file name "options-descr" or some such thing and > it listed each available option in the port and specifically what it > did or how it effected the operation of the application, it would prove > beneficial to the end use. Just my 2=A2 on the matter. You're right, and ports will move towards more verbose option descriptions in the future. However, the version dialog in older (but still supported) versions of FreeBSD chokes on long descriptions. Once we are free of supporting older versions, longer/more descriptive descriptions will be possible. Perhaps Kuriyama-san may comment on STD_SOCKET, but my general rule of thumb is to customise as little as possible, so if the option isn't obviously what you want, just leave it as default :) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838Wp9Df3ARmh%2BUZh_4gaQ4m8eKfbOr8pOq_UoBkZa2mqA>