From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 13 08:05:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CF216A4CE for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9724B43D31 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-118-15.netcologne.de [213.168.118.15]) by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F0DE389A6 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:05:30 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 3505 invoked by uid 1001); 13 Mar 2004 16:05:12 -0000 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:04:50 +0100 From: Thomas-Martin Seck To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20040313160450.GA3436@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20040313110145.763.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <4053207E.4000000@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4053207E.4000000@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms cc: Sergey Matveychuk cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: default OPTIONS aren't the default when BATCH is set X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:05:34 -0000 * Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > > >* Sergey Matveychuk [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: > > > > > >>There is a workaround while it's not fixed: > >>OPTIONS= SOME_DEFAULT "..." on > >>WITH_SOME_DEFAULT?= yes > > > >That looks bogus to me. The ?= does not make sense for variables > >which are checked for definedness only (?= is the same as = since you > >cannot 'unset' the variable on the commandline) and IMO it is sufficient > >to fix the port's options parser to check for WITHOUT_OPTION_FOO when > >'foo' defaults to 'on'. At least this is how I do it in my ports. > > The whole WITHOUT_* stuff is a misfeature IMHO. What options do I get > when I do > > cd textproc/libxml2; make WITHOUT_PYTHON=yes WITH_SCHEMA=yes > WITH_XMLLINT_HIST=yes May I ask you to forward this to the maintainer of said port? This has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. > (which I have in pkgtools.conf). Now I (and lots of other port users) > are chasing ports that are early adaptors of buggy features. Not very > pleasing. Well, I did not commit these "misfeatures" to bsd.port.mk, and ugliness lies in the eye of the beholder. As a maintainer, I choose what is offered to me by bsd.port.mk and decide which feature is useful enough for me to adopt it. To get back on topic: It is vital that you check for WITHOUT_FOO's definedness when you implement a default-to-on-OPTION. When doing so you can avoid the problem we are discussing here regarding the PACKAGE_BUILDING and BATCH cases. Regarding WITHOUT_: I did not write that we should implement a WITHOUT_ option for every WITH_ knob out there. I am only writing about what needs to be keept in mind _when_ one chooses to adopt OPTIONS. That some ports already implement WITHOUT_ knobs is a matter you should discuss with the respective maintainers, not with me.