From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 00:01:28 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C45D16A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:01:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from niobe.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [193.2.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FB343D4C for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:01:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dejan.lesjak@ijs.si) Received: from localhost (localhost.ijs.si [127.0.0.1]) by niobe.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950681DD624; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:01:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from niobe.ijs.si ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (niobe.ijs.si [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68054-16; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:01:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from metatron.ijs.si (metatron.ijs.si [193.2.4.152]) by niobe.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693ED1DD516; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:01:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from idefix.ijs.si (idefix.ijs.si [193.2.4.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by metatron.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA551C00716; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:01:19 +0100 (CET) From: Dejan Lesjak To: Rostislav Krasny Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:01:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20050123231603.91896.qmail@web14823.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050123231603.91896.qmail@web14823.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501240101.18662.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ijs.si cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: same to the ports/51632 PR but in Xorg 6.8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:01:28 -0000 On Monday 24 of January 2005 00:16, Rostislav Krasny wrote: > --- Dejan Lesjak wrote: > > You mean converting X11 ports to use OPTIONS? > > Yes, exactly. > > > Hmm. Right now I'm a bit sceptical about this - there appear to be some > > trouble with using this stuff and as far as I know a better framework > > is being worked on and I wanted to wait for that to become available > > before I try playing with this. > > What troubles OPTIONS use could make? What is this new framework and where > can I read more about it? It's available as an experimental bsd.port.mk replacement in devel/portmk port. As far as I remember about OPTIONS related problems - they're mostly with cases when BATCH or PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined (and with what options would port build in that case), one another thing is that they tend to be annoying to people that don't want to fiddle with dialogs every now and then when they put X11 metaport to compile over night and expect to wake up to a shiny new X (and don't want to set BATCH or PACKAGE_BUILDING for this or that reason). That's actually the main problem I have with OPTIONS, it could very well be that there exists some NO_OPTIONS knob that I've missed. Which brings me to a confession - I haven't really researched enough to see if this would really be a problem or if/how it could be solved. I was kinda waiting for OPTIONSng to come... I'll need to have another look at all these OPTIONS I guess :) Dejan