Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:34:50 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General usefulness of option descriptions Message-ID: <5071D95A.6020402@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20121007152428.11a6172e@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20121007152428.11a6172e@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
First, it was totally inappropriate for eadler to change your option
descriptions. I've fixed it for you.
More below.
On 10/07/2012 06:24, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This probably has been discussed before, but I think in many cases
> using the default descriptions of OptionsNG is more harm than good.
Absolutely correct. I can see *some* value in using standard
descriptions when they are appropriate. But when these "standard
descriptions" were first proposed I had two concerns, one that users
would be bullied into using them (check), and two that they would be
used in preference to better descriptions (check).
> I converted security/libpreludedb to OptionsNG yesterday and
> left in most of the descriptions and therefore overrode them. I did
> that for a good reason, since I believe that the description of the
> option should be more than just repeating the option name.
> Unfortunately the portmgr
FYI, eadler is just a committer. 'portmgr' is a different category.
> One could argue that if a different description is necessary, a
> different option name should be chosen. But this doesn't really work,
> since the meaning to the ports tree in fact *is* that a dependency to
> Perl or MySQL should be introduced, so using the global option names
> makes sense. If one wants to install all ports with their Perl or MySQL
> features enabled, just flipping that one switch should do it, regardless
> of the exact meaning in the context of the port.
You are correct.
> 3. Global option descriptions seem inconsistent as well (all kinds
> exist like support/backend/bindings etc., probably depending on the
> first port that used them) and to make matters worse, they're
> actually changing, e.g. bsd.options.desc.mk from 2012/08/31 said:
> MYSQL_DESC?= MySQL backend
> While the one from 2012/10/07 says:
> MYSQL_DESC?= MySQL database
> So even if using the default was contextually correct at some point,
> it could just be changed without the maintainer noticing it.
Again, correct.
Excellent post, very well said on all points, I just picked particular
ones that I wanted to emphasize.
Doug
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5071D95A.6020402>