Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:00:10 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 'make menuconfig' or how WITH_* can be good for you [patch] Message-ID: <20020620210010.GN76002@squall.waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <20020620164542.A4283@phoenix.dmnstech.net> References: <20020619215638.A23046@phoenix.dmnstech.net> <3D1184C2.17D9588E@FreeBSD.org> <20020620164542.A4283@phoenix.dmnstech.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 04:45:42PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> Good point. Would it be OK to place the tempfile in MASTERDIR, or do I need
> to make menuconfig dependent on extract?
MASTERDIR is expected to be usable on RO FSs.
> Try it? I considered adding an alternate target for the case where there is
> no options file that just prints out ">>> No options available for this port".
That would be good. Or just add an .else for the .if
exists(${MASTERDIR}/options).
Actually, I don't see the need to add another file for "options".
Why not use the port Makefile for it?
> It might also be an idea to print a warning at the start of the port build if
> there is an options file and no Makefile.options (or the Makefile.options is
> outdated). Or possibly both at the start of build (for optimal timing) and at
> the end of the install, so the user has the maximum chance of catching this.
>
> > 3. It would probably be better if menuconfig is invoked automagically
> > before the build if ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.options doesn't exists or
> > outdated (modification time is less than modification time of
> > ${MASTERDIR}/options).
>
> This is an interesting idea.
>
> Initially, I wanted to make it as non-intrusive as possible. I'm not sure
> whether this is best or not - there are a few problems with making it
> "mandatory":
>
> - It influence portupgrade. How do we want to handle this?
Provide a hook for portupgrade to see the options chosen.
> - It influence package builds; we probably need to make it set IS_INTERACTIVE
> in that case (or avoid the options when building packages). Ideally, we
> would change the name of the package depending on what options were set, so
> it would be possible to build all relevant packages. For that use, we
> should also mark which options are significant enough to warrant building
> standard packages with them toggled.
No. Just make menuconfig default except when BATCH or
PARALLEL_PACKAGE_BUILDING defined.
> - The present implementation lose the user's settings when the menuconfig
> target is restarted. If the target was forced to be started, this would be
> a lot more annoying, and would have to be dealt with (which could get hairy
> fast.)
Umm. I think it best to keep selected options between builds
except if ${WRKDIR} is cleaned.
Regards,
--
wca
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020620210010.GN76002>