Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:29:10 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "Ilya A. Arkhipov" <rum1cro@yandex.ru> Subject: Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default? Message-ID: <519DE166.2030303@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <519DE07F.7040103@gmail.com> References: <20130523054541.GH96836@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <758641369300207@web4g.yandex.ru> <519DDEA6.4030106@marino.st> <519DE07F.7040103@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/23/2013 11:25, Vitaly Magerya wrote: >>> I think it is not good idea, because if user don't know regarding >>> options in ports he should do a make config and if it not exist >>> should do a make install in this case we have two action.. >>> Maybe other way for fix these frequent "popping" add needed options to make.conf >> >> I like the suggestion that if the dialog consists only of globally set >> options (NLS, DOC, etc) then it shouldn't appear by default. > > Except the cases when those options pull in additional dependencies. > > In those cases either the dialog should be shown, or the options should > be disabled by default. The issue is that _by definition_ these options are enabled by default. I'm not sure I agree that an always-enabled option should trigger a dialog just because it has dependencies. Doesn't NLS have dependencies? That would already negate the benefit greatly if this suggestion were followed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?519DE166.2030303>