Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:26:35 +0200 From: "Gabor Tjong A Hung" <g.v.tjongahung@gmail.com> To: "Brooks Davis" <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.bawue.com>, David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> Subject: Re: ./options-descr file suggestion for ports Message-ID: <822946050706120826r75835defj2dbf76fc2ecfccb6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070611151636.GA16517@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <200706090936.51775.david@vizion2000.net> <20070609203316.GC71246@voodoo.bawue.com> <20070611151636.GA16517@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As it is now some ports don't even have OPTIONS, and you need to define variables to "define" your options. I don't really understand why this is done this way, but this is equally annoying. On 6/11/07, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:33:17PM +0200, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:36:51AM -0700, David Southwell wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Would it be possible , when a port has options, to ask porters if > they would > > > consider the merits/demerits of adding: > > > > > > 1. An ./options-descr file in the port directory that describes the > options, > > > their purpose and any notes about an option > > > > > > Reasons: > > > This would be extremely useful for anyone not familiar with the port > to help > > > in the task of choosing which options to install. > > > > > > I realise that this would depend upon whether maintainers are willing > to add > > > an additional task to the already heavy burden they undertake. > Maintainers > > > who are willing to consider this idea but are reluctant to prepare the > notes > > > themselves but do not have the time or are for any reason reluctant to > do so, > > > could invite users to submit notes for incorporating in > ./options-descr. > > > > > > By way of example I am just installing www/ruby-gem-rails and had no > immediate > > > idea whether or not to add fastcgi support without trying to find out > whether > > > it is or is not needed when one has mod_ruby installed and > > > LoadModule ruby_module libexec/apache/mod_ruby.so > > > in httpd.conf. A brief note in a ./options-descr could be very > helpful, > > > especially for some ports where the options are sometimes numerous and > not > > > always completely documented. > > > > > > A little bit of intial guidance about options would be most helpful to > a > > > system administrator who is not necessarily familiar with the a > specific > > > port. > > > > That's what ports/KNOBS supposed to be, see rev. 1.1 by ahze: > > > > Limitations to KNOBS: In the future we plan to add support for > > OPTIONS to support the KNOBS file, and so dialog(1) will be able to > > handle the size of each knob knob-name's are limited to 12 > > characters and knob-descriptions are limited to 45 characters, not > > including the white space between the knob-name and > > knob-description. > > > > Though, I don't know when OPTIONS support to KNOBS will be added. > > While I think KNOBS has merit, I don't think it addresses per-port > issues such as documenting dependencies between various OPTIONS or > documenting that a particular option has a large or small impact on > dependencies. > > -- Brooks > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?822946050706120826r75835defj2dbf76fc2ecfccb6>