From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 30 11:34:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61980395 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:34:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ADFCE753 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:34:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 73631 invoked by uid 89); 30 May 2013 11:27:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@109.43.0.62) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 30 May 2013 11:27:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:27:42 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: shells/bash: Options slightly confusing Message-ID: <20130530132742.43455bba@bsd64.grem.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:34:37 -0000 Hi, Since shells/bash has been converted to OptionsNG the following new options show up: [x] COLONBREAKSWORDS Colons break words [x] IMPLICITCD Use directory name alone to cd into it both enabled by default. This does not change the previous behaviour of the port, when those were hidden in the Makefile. This confused me for a sec, since the option descriptions make it sound like the behaviour of bash is actually changed quite dramatically, even though those are added as features which then have to be activated through configuration. I think it would be better to mark those explicitly as features, e.g.: [x] COLONBREAKSWORDS Support shopt "Colons break words" [x] IMPLICITCD Support shopt "Use directory name alone to cd into it" 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. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Gmelin