From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 30 17:21:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E255CCC for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:21:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qa0-x22e.google.com (mail-qa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22e]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA15B80E for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 17:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id bv4so1159505qab.5 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:21:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/fBoU/EM5KYQk8V83CXB14y7iZW1CSB25F++BL0I2As=; b=AdMGniqsFS5iRod2CjRsA9XkukVkwPTlo7xKQ26uL0lrTf0HbP+3Ou7j2UhW7JjZiU uA8z/hDjZWM72QGxECbSfJ3HUotLXEIPBVVQCot9BvasHrzMEqqOQ34SNSmy1QouPK3g HUaTh9z8l+bw16m6x3uUx23JW0IgoSm26F+qO6WkJjmNnKM15MJkn8yd44oEbUu9pU3Z dJgCpvOJx9lYLFxXngZY4tBJwPp3lq3hOapXjx68jp7C1yiRZNVUGfPPZrnYn3K4lz82 pE+LysWhJPLwyh8ARd3b6FtzbSZll8nfYAEVt1P8QC22uFhGcKEEm094JOQWse4M0yl8 zXEQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.172.10 with SMTP id j10mr2726501qcz.27.1369934488262; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.36.36 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:21:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130530105753.722eec41@scorpio> References: <20130530132742.43455bba@bsd64.grem.de> <51A7413D.9010104@marino.st> <20130530150955.2916170a@bsd64.grem.de> <20130530105753.722eec41@scorpio> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:21:28 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: shells/bash: Options slightly confusing From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-ports Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 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 17:21:28 -0000 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:09:55 +0200 > Michael Gmelin articulated: > > > On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:08:29 +0200 > > John Marino 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 :) > > I agree whole heartily. Unfortunately, all too many ports have > options that all cryptic in nature. There really needs to be better > documentation as to what the options actually do. Perhaps having an > additional file in each port named "OPTDESC", or whatever that would > list each available option for the port and exactly what it did would > prove useful. It certainly would not be a burden as over 90% of the > ports that have either none or just one or two options. Besides, if > some maintainer created a port with 40 or 50 configurable options, then > they certainly can take the time to fully document them. > > Isn't long options description support enabled in the ports tree now? Or was that only available via Warren Block's dialogwrapper? Or maybe via dialog4ports? I remember reading something about this a few months back, where the bottom of the screen would show long descriptions of what the option would do, or a separate help screen would be available. Or maybe that was just a proof-of-concept? -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com