Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:01:52 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Please convert your ports to new options framework Message-ID: <4FD27650.2040702@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-i1nrCmaVm%2BUMJNWChbP1SQPqphsuihQN08Epnt_4raw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120603184448.GI92976@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FD1FEB5.4000703@cyberbotx.com> <CADLo83-i1nrCmaVm%2BUMJNWChbP1SQPqphsuihQN08Epnt_4raw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/08/2012 06:34, Chris Rees wrote:
>> 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?
With Baptiste's latest work on backwards compatibility this should work
fine now, however you should double-check that the same WITH_/WITHOUT_
knobs you have in your port.conf are still the ones defined in the
ports' Makefiles.
> I'll make you a nice script for that purpose later.
Chris, as much as I appreciate your efforts in doing this, asking the
user to run scripts to convert stuff is not the answer. We need a ports
system that is transparently backwards compatible for users, not one
where they constantly have to jump through hoops to make things work
again that have worked fine for them for years.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FD27650.2040702>