Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:42:09 +0200 From: hans@lambermont.dyndns.org (Hans Lambermont) To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr>, Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, Frank Laszlo <laszlof@vonostingroup.com> Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060510214209.GH66029@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4460798A.4010208@vonostingroup.com> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <20060508212441.GB767@picobyte.net> <1147124004.18944.77.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <4460798A.4010208@vonostingroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Frank Laszlo wrote: > FYI, I am currently working on some OPTIONS enhancements including > submenu's, radio dialogs, and things of this nature. Also fixing a few > inherent problems with the way OPTIONS are handled as I go. I'll > report back when I have something final. AFAIK the ports tree is in the process of moving away from 'WITH' knobs to 'OPTIONS' interactive dialog screens. Yet I see lots of proposals to enhance the 'WITH' knobs, typically in one location (make.conf with .CURDIR if's, or pkgtools.conf with the MAKE_ARGS section). This doesn't make sense to me. Personally I prefer all configuration stuff to be in one location, and vi-editable, but I also like the easy UI of OPTIONS. I think we should have both, which implies a change in the way 'OPTIONS' are stored. What do the 'OPTIONS'-powers-that-be think of this ? regards, Hans Lambermont ps. I also have ideas on pre/post install scripts, build and runtime dependency trees, module backout handling, etc. But I'll leave that for another time, let's first get the 'WITH'/'OPTIONS' future path clear :-) -- Oh, and let's put csup and portmaster in the base system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060510214209.GH66029>