Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:57:10 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <4FCA0DA6.7070502@acsalaska.net> In-Reply-To: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12-5-2012 5:41, Erwin Lansing wrote: > All the details has been documented and written down on the wiki: > http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/OptionsNG Sorry to jump in late, but it just occurred to me that I have a valid case for "zero or 1" multi options or implemented slightly different, a case for "if single is on, multigroup needs one, else multigroup must be 0" The specific case is this: - User can opt to force runtime dependency on a web server by selecting one of 4 or none. Same for mail server (3 choices). While these ports do not necessarily conflict, there can be conflicting entries and as such I prefer to narrow the choice to one. Makes more sense too for the practical case. I currently have this implemented in old options, but I don't see a clear way to do this with optionsng as the minimum for multi options is 1. I can of course present these as they are now, 3-4 simple options with custom logic. -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCA0DA6.7070502>