Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:23:43 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT+Brainstorm] Extending the options framework Message-ID: <20121206172343.GD44419@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <87.C3.07651.8F2D0C05@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <87.C3.07651.8F2D0C05@smtp02.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:16:40PM -0500, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > Most of people sems happy with the new framework options however it cou= ld be yet > > better, here is an attempt to improve it: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/options%2bradio%2bgroup.diff >=20 > > Among the complains people tends to find that OPTIONS_SINGLE aka 1 amon= g N is > > nice but the 0 or 1 among N is not user friendly. So here is OPTIONS_RA= DIO which > > is natively 0 or 1 among N without the need of adding its name to > > OPTIONS_DEFINE. >=20 > > if everyone is happy with OPTIONS_RADIO, then the 0 or 1 feature from > > OPTIONS_SINGLE will be removed later once the ports needed that has been > > converted to OPTIONS_RADIO >=20 > > Another feature request I received was the ability to group options int= o a named > > group, to avoid some sort of sorting of option name (nginx is a good ex= ample in > > my mind that could benefit it. So OPTIONS_GROUP has been created > > OPTIONS_GROUP works exactly the same as OPTIONS_MULTI except that is ac= cept 0 or > > N among M >=20 > > if you have better name to propose feel free :) >=20 > > Please test, send you remark etc. >=20 > > regards, > > Bapt >=20 > Would this extended options framework be accessed by configuration dialog= , or > would it be by editing make.conf or other file? >=20 This hasn't change meaning that you can fully configure from make.conf using OPTIONS_SET/OPTIONS_UNSET or name_SET/name_UNSET or use make config to conf= igure them. > There needs to be a way to better make clear when exactly one, or at most= one > of a group of options can be selected. NetBSD pkgsrc makes this clear wi= th > the Makefile or options.mk . I have had instances when, after configurin= g=20 > with the dialog, a port couldn't build because I had selected two options= not > compatible with each other, and no warning before the port build failed. This shouldn't happen anymore since new option framework as the check-config phase is there to fail if you have chosen incompatible option, which since = june you should be free of those failures for all ports that have been converted. >=20 > In most cases, I was able to build the port after reading the error messa= ge=20 > and reconfiguring the options to avoid the incompatible mix. >=20 If you encounter one of those failures again then you should report it to t= he maintainer, this is a bug and should not happen. regards, Bapt --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlDA1J8ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ezo7QCfaT5SkNIHEj6XSLI4jcVFMOVJ f+MAoIfAXmdn/3yY+joBOYGd0MZ40TrN =lLX7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121206172343.GD44419>