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>