From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 23 15:39:31 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 84DE2143 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 15:39:31 +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 E8F43C10 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 15:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 94016 invoked by uid 89); 23 May 2013 15:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@194.97.158.66) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 23 May 2013 15:32:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:32:47 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: Florent Peterschmitt Subject: Re: Proposal: do not show up the dialog(1) by default? Message-ID: <20130523173247.545a179e@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <519E2CFC.3070908@peterschmitt.fr> References: <20130523054541.GH96836@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <519DB904.2050209@delphij.net> <519E2CFC.3070908@peterschmitt.fr> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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, 23 May 2013 15:39:31 -0000 On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:51:40 +0200 Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > Le 23/05/2013 08:36, Xin Li a =C3=A9crit : > > On 5/22/13 10:45 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> hi, > >=20 > >> A lot of people seems to be complaining about the configuration > >> dialog popping up all the time. > >=20 > >> What if we change the default behaviour to not pop up the dialog > >> each time there is a changed option but only when the user > >> explicitly type make config? > >=20 > >> Just a proposal, please give your opinion. > >=20 > >> Of course make config-recursive behaviour won't change. > >=20 > > I think this would be a good idea. If the a majority of users need > > to change default options, then the default should be changed. > >=20 > > Not really related to the dialog, but maybe, I mean maybe, we can > > teach package tools to just go ahead download and install package, > > if the options being chosen matches the package options, if the host > > system meets certain criteria (e.g. is a supported release or > > -CURRENT) and the package is available? > >=20 > > Another idea is to collect the options from user, and send it as a > > feedback (the user have reviewed the default and either accepted it, > > or have changed). This would help port maintainers to decide which > > options should be made default, etc. >=20 > What you're thinking about is a sort of intelligent dialog ? >=20 > In my opinion, dialog should *not* pop-up and take options like this: >=20 > * A default option changed by user has changed -> take user's one > * All default options unchanged by user -> take new defaults That way it's impossible to ever change default options for a port though, otherwise users which were happy with the previous default configuration end up in big trouble on update - unless ports is smart enough to tell that the installed versions was built using a port skeleton that had a different set of default options. --=20 Michael Gmelin