From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 10:38:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA75106566B for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:38:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fwall@inotronic.de) Received: from mail.inotronic.de (mail.inotronic.de [77.73.248.111]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36458FC12 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phosphorus (mail [77.73.248.111]) by mail.inotronic.de (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7UASiVQ047671 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from fwall@inotronic.de) X-Filter-Status: scanned by inotronic CheckMAIL Received: from boron.inotronic.de (boron.inotronic-intern.de [10.1.2.10]) by mail.inotronic.de (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7UASUUb047650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from fwall@inotronic.de) X-Receipient-To: Received: from pcfw2 (pcfw2.inotronic-intern.de [10.1.2.235]) by boron.inotronic.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UASTXc025820; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from fwall@inotronic.de) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:28:29 +0200 From: Frank Wall To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110830102829.GN2084@pcfw2> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues 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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:38:56 -0000 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