From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 28 20:42:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BEA106566C; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:42:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8392F14F22B; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:42:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:42:44 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sahil Tandon Subject: Re: OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:42:44 -0000 On 8/28/2011 10:46 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 19:41:02 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > >> just a brain flash: bsd.port.mk currently re-prompts OPTIONS if >> they've changed, for instance, through addition. >> >> Should we change this feature in b.p.mk so that it also re-prompt the >> user when the defaults have changed? The way that (for example) portmaster works now is that if the user has already answered the questions for that port they don't get the dialog again unless a knob has been added or deleted. Personally I would find it surprising to be presented with the dialog again if there were no changes to the set of options. I wouldn't see a change in defaults in this case since my answers are already going to be filled in. For this specific case I probably would have changed the language of the gnutls option to make it clear that it needs to be un-selected, and added a no-op OPTION to make sure that users saw the dialog. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/