From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 13 11:54:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890BF16A400; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:54:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4048313C44C; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:54:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 4E89D1CC28; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT) From: David Southwell Organization: Voice and Vision To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:06:52 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200706090936.51775.david@vizion2000.net> <822946050706120826r75835defj2dbf76fc2ecfccb6@mail.gmail.com> <20070613093658.dk1r5iud8gssss0o@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070613093658.dk1r5iud8gssss0o@webmail.leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706130506.53149.david@vizion2000.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger , Gabor Tjong A Hung Subject: Re: ./options-descr file suggestion for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:54:33 -0000 On Wednesday 13 June 2007 00:36:58 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Gabor Tjong A Hung (from Tue, 12 > > Jun 2007 17:26:35 +0200): > > 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. > > First there where no OPTIONS, then OPTIONS was introduced. If you feel > annoyed by those ports which are not converted yet to OPTIONS (because > nobody felt annoyed enough to convert them), feel free to submit > patches for them. > > Bye, > Alexander. OK guys Can I bring this back to the topic please? Some thoughtful contributions would be appreciated. thanks The original posting was: ************************** Would it be possible , when a port has options, to ask porters if they wou= ld=20 consider the merits/demerits of adding: 1. An ./options-descr file in the port directory that describes =C2=A0the o= ptions,=20 their purpose and any notes about an option Reasons: This would be extremely useful for anyone not familiar with the port to hel= p=20 in the task of choosing which options to install.=20 I realise that this would depend upon whether maintainers are willing to ad= d=20 an additional task to the already heavy burden they undertake. Maintainers= =20 who are willing to consider this idea but are reluctant to prepare the note= s=20 themselves but do not have the time or are for any reason reluctant to do s= o,=20 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 immedi= ate=20 idea whether or not to add fastcgi support without trying to find out wheth= er=20 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,=20 especially for some ports where the options are sometimes numerous and not= =20 always completely documented. A little bit of intial guidance about options would be most helpful to a=20 system administrator who is not necessarily familiar with the a specific=20 port. my two pennorth. ****************************