Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:11:42 -0400
From:      Frank Laszlo <laszlof@vonostingroup.com>
To:        Fernan Aguero <fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: alternative options for ports
Message-ID:  <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041014135041.GB4625@iib.unsam.edu.ar>
References:  <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <416C35A5.4040703@vonostingroup.com> <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org> <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org> <416DAB52.5070404@struchtrup.com> <416DAD75.7000504@vonostingroup.com> <416DB213.3020708@struchtrup.com> <20041014095355.GA61134@elendil.ru> <20041014135041.GB4625@iib.unsam.edu.ar>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I just had a thought about this whole thing. I know a lot of users feel 
intimidated by the Makefile's in ports,
and would not dare open one up in an editor. Even if they did, they 
wouldnt understand it fully. so what if
the ports had a target that listed possible options within the Makefile, 
and what exactly they did. Maybe
this would require another file in the ports, like 'pkg-options' It 
would be formated something like this

WITH_SOMEFEATURE            Add so and so feature to the package.
WITH_SOMETHINGELSE         This will create something here.

That way a user could just type something like 'make listoptions' and it 
will give a nice list of build options
for a specific port. Anyone have any feedback on this?

Regards,
    Frank



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?416E891E.8070003>