Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:46:44 +0200 From: Alberto Villa <avilla@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Options name, descriptions and consistency Message-ID: <CAJp7RHY_xXBX%2B5nwAwDBR%2Bk%2Bf_Ho9%2BROVCT-3z54hR0b6dFfbA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120530063334.GD9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20120530063334.GD9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options > and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general > meaning descriptions that make more sense, has anyone can improve the > description of an option. While I really like what bsd.options.desc.mk is supposed to do, I would like to recommend to any committer/maintainer (and I will personally submit a patch for the soon-to-come documentation and for the file itself) to think before always relying on on default option descriptions. Sometimes just saying "Enable XXX support" doesn't mean anything to the user, and a more explanatory text would be far better, explaining maybe what feature one is about to enable instead of just what he is going to depend on. So, please, do not hesitate to redefine option descriptions for your ports if you feel you can add more information for the port specific case. -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer <avilla@FreeBSD.org> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJp7RHY_xXBX%2B5nwAwDBR%2Bk%2Bf_Ho9%2BROVCT-3z54hR0b6dFfbA>