Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:34:22 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Naram Qashat <cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework Message-ID: <CADLo83-i1nrCmaVm%2BUMJNWChbP1SQPqphsuihQN08Epnt_4raw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD1FEB5.4000703@cyberbotx.com> References: <20120603184448.GI92976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FD1FEB5.4000703@cyberbotx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 8, 2012 2:32 PM, "Naram Qashat" <cyberbotx@cyberbotx.com> wrote: > > On 06/03/12 14:44, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The new options framework is now in the port for a week, most of the problems >> directly concerning the framework seems to have been addressed. >> >> Some issue seems still to be there regarding backward compatibility but I >> haven't been able to reproduced any of the one that are supposed to be left. >> >> The porters handbook has been updated and the new option framework is well >> documented (thank you crees) >> >> Please convert as soon as possible your ports to the new framework. As you may >> already have notice bsd.options.desc.mk provide shared descriptions of the usual >> options, try to be consistent and reuse the same options name so that it is >> simpler for users, please override the description for your ports each time it >> make sense, remember that most of the time a functional description is more >> accurate than a technical one, users might not know the technical details but >> they know what functionnality they do want. >> >> All the complaints I found in the past concerning the old framework have been >> addressed in the new one, you can have mutually exclusive options, checked by >> the framework, you can have group options, you can have 0 or only 1 option among >> N or 0 or N options among M. be creative, most of the use case should be doable. >> >> for 3 special options: DOCS, EXAMPLES and NLS, you do not need to activate them >> in OPTIONS_DEFAULT as the framework already activate them. you also do not need >> to add them to OPTIONS_DEFINE if you only use one of them, do avoid having the >> dialog UI to show up. >> >> DOCS in long term maybe used to replace NOPORTDOCS (NOPORTDOCS is defined has a >> backward compatibility if as a user you remove it). >> >> Same goes for EXAMPLES -> NOPORTEXAMPLES >> and NLS -> WITHOUT_NLS >> >> In my concern the priority is: >> >> 1/ convert all the old OPTIONS: >> Here is a list of them >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/Options/ConvertingToOptionsNG >> >> 2/ replace all the knobs by optionsNg options (replacing the KNOBS file by >> bsd.options.desc >> >> regards, >> Bapt > > > So I have a question from a consumer standpoint as opposed to a maintainer standpoint. If we use portconf to store all of our WITH_* options for ports, will that continue to work with ports that have switched to optionsng or is there something I need to change in my ports.conf file for the options to continue to be recognized? > I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-i1nrCmaVm%2BUMJNWChbP1SQPqphsuihQN08Epnt_4raw>