From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 19 06:17:19 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id 27F6F34F; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:17:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:17:19 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements
Message-ID: <20130619061719.GD61109@FreeBSD.org>
References: <20130618160037.GA26677@regency.nsu.ru>
 <op.wyvvztj134t2sn@tech304.office.supranet.net>
 <20130618171253.GA93721@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAMuy=+iA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuy=+iA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:17:19 -0000

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> > > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax
> > > and now we want to change it again? :-)
> >
> > Yeah, why not?  ;-)
> >
> > I've discussed that idea before with bapt@ on IRC; there is absolutely
> > no reasons why we should not use now-free nice, short OPTIONS knob again.
> 
> Perhaps your proposal would carry more weight, feedback and/or testing
> results if it included a patch and an example port with the modified values
> for your new idea.

Surely, patch would be the next step.

> This has been quiet successful in the recent past with bapt's proposals for
> options, uses, etc.

Except that sometimes I think they are not being discussed enough prior to
commit. ;-)

./danfe