Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:40:37 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: NO_OPTIONS_SORT makes options disappear
Message-ID:  <20120604224036.GK73254@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FCD3688.7070000@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4FCD1EC7.9060905@FreeBSD.org> <20120604222215.GH73254@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FCD3688.7070000@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--SLauP2uySp+9cKYP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 03:28:24PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>=20
> On 06/04/2012 15:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:47:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> The new options framework sorts all of the options by default
> >> before presenting them to the user. I have mixed feelings about
> >> this, however there is supposed to be a workaround for those of
> >> us who have grouped the options for our ports into logical
> >> chunks, NO_OPTIONS_SORT.
> >>=20
> >> Today I tried defining that in my BIND ports so that users would
> >> not be confused during the upgrade process, and got this:
> >>=20
> >> make config =3D=3D=3D> No options to configure
> >>=20
> >> I tried defining NO_OPTIONS_SORT both before and after including=20
> >> bsd.port.pre.mk, got the same result for both.
>=20
> > Have you tried keeping you port as-is
>=20
> I left it as-is since I don't have time to do anything else. This
> results in a bad user experience since the options are now all sorted
> into alphabetical order instead of the meaningful groupings that I had
> them in.
>=20
> > or converting it ?
>=20
> I don't have time to do that right now, and this should not be
> necessary in order to maintain backwards compatibility with what I
> already had. I can accept adding the NO_OPTIONS_SORT knob, but the
> fact that adding it causes things to be dramatically more broken than
> they already are is a bug.
>=20
> > Can you send me a diff so that I can have a deeper look tomorrow
> > morning GMT+1?
>=20
> I described what I did in detail in my OP. Adding NO_OPTIONS_SORT was
> the only change I made.
>=20
> Doug
>=20
> - --=20
>=20
>     This .signature sanitized for your protection
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
>=20
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPzTaIAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEOuUH/2WcSn0Wn8xMoUzhIJBm2x2Z
> Axog5WoLoL/uuddijCsAQyQlG4OxYaatMvIPBg2kImqZDdZV0wDvrp/vcg3vngYX
> zvq2kpzfc0y8BT01UWi6BNGJXymDHZ0/b8NKv7pYrUWvTLta4Ae8wxtxZciGsAVL
> ITMFXygIDhu8KWtWmfakP5bJpwexz+v20M1CoKhBWJ8FuawcicZctOscbUCYn4HE
> KK4kYcmO/sb8C5n8aCehJXQbcZX77wftSDUatfNpv8WTxyDPzKpms3SwmfOUIMnd
> XSnh4O4eiyIccPk9OCE4EMOmizlJhBxMpgEPp6a0QeAwmWaYA09dTiyhbexXcXQ=3D
> =3DFlRt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Can you try with this patch ?
http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/bsd.options.mk.diff

Still adding NO_OPTIONS_SORT=3Dyes

regards,
Bapt

--SLauP2uySp+9cKYP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk/NOWQACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez5jgCgsTN1U9pjzXSvbuZzTlUfNCJe
phEAnjDtHC40v1jNPi0S23ikVW8eD8wx
=VXE8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SLauP2uySp+9cKYP--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120604224036.GK73254>