Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:17:46 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz> Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local Message-ID: <A1D0B654-E2EB-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040731134457.0b88cd39@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > [...] >> I even want to be able to configure ports that have absolutely no >> support for optionsNG, by prasing the Makefile for WITH(OUT)_ tests. >> Of course you will have limited funtionality, since no explanations of >> the options are available. Currently the development has been delayed, >> due to the localpkg breakage. > > Yes, a heads-up would have been nice. Does it make sense to produce > patches to convert ports without OPTIONS to OPTIONS now or one should > wait until optionsNG ? Does it makes sense to convert to options at all > ? Hmmm... The stuff I'm developing is publicly available at devel/portmk. A heads-up makes only sense when decisions have been made, which is not the case. The fate of OPTIONS depends on what eivind has in development, and what the general perception of OPTIONS and optinonsNG is. I'm sorry that my documentation isn't ready yet, I'm currently busy with writing rc.subr stuff. >> [...] >> at least pkgtools.conf needs to be supported, since it is so wildly >> popular. > > Yes, please. And Radim's portindex too, if it's not to much to ask; it's > very nice to have your INDEX rebuilt in 2 minutes ;) AFAICS this has nothing to do with the current thread. Besides, I'm not sure why everybody is so wild about building his own INDEX. >>>> [...] >> Another thing that is a strict no-no in my book is that users that >> have configured their ports by portupgrade or similar methods are >> suddenly no longer able to do so, because maintainers gratiously >> change from WITH_* to WITHOUT_* or WITH_* && !WITHOUT_* or similar >> constructs. I see this as a major POLA violation. > > Yes, it is. One question: why do we (still) have WITH_* and WITHOUT_* > both definable in a Makefile ? I'm always confused by those. Shouldn't > there be only WITH_* in Makefiles and default to off if that's what the > maintainer thinks ? > > E.g. > .if defined(WITHOUT_DEBUG) > CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-debug > .else > CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-debug > .endif > > could be > .if defined(WITH_DEBUG) > CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --enable-debug > .else > CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-debug > .endif > > Of course, this assumes options. Yup, that's the point. Classic ports assumed that variables are not defined by default, so we have to support that. >> Any port that uses optionsNG should behave like before when a user >> choses to use other means than optionsNG to configure the port. So >> it's an optional feature, but not required. > > My want list for options ;) contains: > - have a way to output something to the user _before_ the options blue > screen What do you want to display? IMHO configuration should be a one-step process, perhaps with an optional help file. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A1D0B654-E2EB-11D8-9C56-00039312D914>