Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:51:01 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: lofi@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, nork@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Integrated DEBUG related macros to WITH_DEBUG/WITHOUT_DEBUG Message-ID: <20051114.015101.71545144.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200511131007.35678.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <200511130900.24801.lofi@freebsd.org> <20051113081633.GD69544@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <200511131007.35678.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Mon_Nov_14_01_51_01_2005_944)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> wrote in <200511131007.35678.lofi@freebsd.org>: lo> On Sunday, 13. November 2005 09:16, Stijn Hoop wrote: lo> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:00:21AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: lo> > > I don't think it's a good idea at all to unify all debug knobs lo> > > into one universal WITH/WITHOUT_DEBUG - it requires the user to use a lo> > > third party portmanager utilitiy or fiddling with conditionals in lo> > > make.conf if he wants debug symbols on specific ports only. lo> > lo> > Well that goes for the other knobs as well of course -- WITH_PERL, lo> > WITH_PYTHON and other programming extension languages come to mind, as lo> > do NOPORTDOCS and WITHOUT_GUI (there are some things that I don't need lo> > a GUI for on my desktop). lo> lo> And people have expressed their unhappiness with that status quo repeatedly, lo> especially in the context of OPTIONS. lo> lo> One very promising proposed solution was to extend the OPTIONS framework to lo> support NO_OPTIONS_<portname> and WITH|WITHOUT_<option_choice>_<portname>. lo> lo> I agree that this is the way to go - making the currently available switches lo> even more ambiguous just in order to get more content into KNOBS is lo> contraproductive. I also want some sort of namespace mechanism for the port option knobs (WITH_*). How about making possible to define one variable for one port, not adding namespace to the port knobs themselves, like the following: OPTIONS_<portname> = X11 DEBUG NO_GUI FOO=bar This definition can be expanded into WITH_X11=yes, WITH_DEBUG=yes, WITHOUT_GUI=yes, and FOO=bar by bsd.port.mk when the port <portname> is built. In this way the keywords and their meanings can be locally defined in each port as well as backward compatibility can be kept, I think. Also, global knobs can be defined as OPTIONS_default like this: OPTIONS_default = X11 NO_GUI If the interpretation is performed in order of (vars in command line) -> (vars in OPTIONSFILE) -> OPTIONS_<portname> -> OPTIONS_default (i.e. vars in command line have the highest priority), the behavior is intuitive. -- | Hiroki SATO ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Nov_14_01_51_01_2005_944)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDd271TyzT2CeTzy0RAiqKAKChJpUSjUq0tNyxhwz6L+EaAp9FZACeNefQ gKHikKwDrWibnmLNlS5NbRA= =eWq+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Nov_14_01_51_01_2005_944)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051114.015101.71545144.hrs>