From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 27 23:17:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCD91065678; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:17:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shaun@FreeBSD.org) Received: from dione.picobyte.net (81-86-230-94.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.230.94]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF93E8FC18; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:17:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shaun@FreeBSD.org) Received: from charon.picobyte.net (charon.picobyte.net [IPv6:2001:770:15d::fe03]) by dione.picobyte.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30824B80F; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:47:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:47:47 +0100 From: Shaun Amott To: Wesley Shields Message-ID: <20080427224747.GA8457@charon.picobyte.net> References: <20080426020216.GM23691@atarininja.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080426020216.GM23691@atarininja.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (FreeBSD i386) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: long descriptions in OPTIONS 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: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:17:44 -0000 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