Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:24:00 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@csh.rit.edu> To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <20041014142359.GC26752@csh.rit.edu> In-Reply-To: <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com> 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> <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:11:42AM -0400, Frank Laszlo wrote: > 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 Some ports already list their tunable option(s). Check out net/gaim as an example. I do think that adding a listoptions target might be helpful to those that are scared of opening up a Makefile and doing a little learning. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041014142359.GC26752>