Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:47:47 +0100 From: Shaun Amott <shaun@FreeBSD.org> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: long descriptions in OPTIONS Message-ID: <20080427224747.GA8457@charon.picobyte.net> In-Reply-To: <20080426020216.GM23691@atarininja.org> References: <20080426020216.GM23691@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:02:16PM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote: > Based upon an idea in an earlier thread on this list[1] I came up with > two ways of adding an extended description to our existing OPTIONS > framework. > > 1: Extend the OPTIONS to be 4 fields instead of the current 3 fields. > The 4th field would be the long description - providing more detailed > information about what this option does or supports. In order to > distinguish between a port with 4 OPTIONS without the long description > (12 fields) and a port with 3 OPTIONS with the long description (also 12 > fields) the patch requires the port to turn on a knob (OPTIONS_DESC) > when using the long field. The idea is that over time this will become > the default and can eventually be removed. > > 2: Leave OPTIONS as is but support a DESC_FOO variable for each OPTION. > This variable would be the long description field, and if it doesn't > exist a default message indicating such would be displayed. > > Both of these methods are displayed to the user when '?' or F1 is > pressed during the dialog screen. In the case of (1) the extra dialog > is only shown if the port supports it. In the case of (2) the extra > dialog is always available since we have a default message to display. > I suppose a third way would be to use a default message when the knob is > not set for (1), which would probably simplify things slightly. > > Personally, I prefer (1) but I'm open to suggestions on how to improve > either of them, or an entirely new idea all together. I'd like to > submit these as PRs eventually, so please do try to keep the bikesheds > to a minimum. :) > I slightly prefer option 2. It seems like it would be better to support having a long description for only some of the options. Another idea might be to make the standard description field contain a long description, but only display the first X characters in the current location, and the full string inside the help box. But this might lead to less than optimal text used in the first X characters. A very useful feature, either way. Thanks for your work on this! -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080427224747.GA8457>