Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:29 +0200 From: Frank Wall <fwall@inotronic.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues Message-ID: <20110830102829.GN2084@pcfw2> In-Reply-To: <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <CADLo838TqZjGH__KNTu3A0wVEnX%2B225HFhBmiEjqj=456y6iag@mail.gmail.com> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:40:25AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Euhm, while workable I don't like that approach. And I conclude that
> the way the OPTIONS system currently works has a serious shortcoming, in
> that it does not report changed defaults to the user.
>
> Basically in this situation ("default changed") we'd need to:
>
> 1. present the options form again
> 2. mention to the user that the default has changed
> 3. let him choose.
I don't think that this is the right way to go. You are forcing
the user to rethink his past decision(s). Why would I want to do this?
The user decided to go a specific path by initially choosing a
specific set of OPTIONs. We *must* assume that the user had good
reasons to do so. We should *not* assume the user has no idea what
he's doing and needs to be guided. The latter would make make the
update process just more complicated.
To me the Ports System is mainly for expert users. Most of them will
track changes and test (port/software) updates before installing
this update on important systems.
Bye
- Frank
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110830102829.GN2084>