Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:09:55 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shells/bash: Options slightly confusing Message-ID: <20130530150955.2916170a@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <51A7413D.9010104@marino.st> References: <20130530132742.43455bba@bsd64.grem.de> <51A7413D.9010104@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:08:29 +0200 John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> wrote: > On 5/30/2013 13:27, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > I assume there are better ways to make this clear. It might even > > make sense to have a basic distinction on the ports system level - > > options that provide additional features vs. options that > > change the (default) behavior of the port. > > Isn't this implicit in the option default selection? In other words, > the fact that it's pre-selected indicates the default behavior of the > port, right? > > Even in the case of a dialog showing where it didn't before isn't a > logical reason to think pre-selected options are changes in default > behavior, at least not to me. > There's been some debate over the bash port earlier this year, plus it has been converted to OptionsNg recently (AFAIK it had no options dialog before), therefore my pessimism. But regardless of default options and updating - if I installed bash for the first time and seen an option labeled as "Use directory name alone to cd into it" I would assume that bash will behave like this after installation without further configuration - in contrast to adding the ability to do that ("Support feature"). Maybe it's just me though :) -- Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130530150955.2916170a>