From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 12:29:38 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 8020E1065672 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6E8FC14 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2011 08:29:37 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA) with ESMTP id BGR26441; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:29:36 -0400 Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=209.6.41.114; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.6.41.114; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=209.6.41.114; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="postmaster@jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received: from 209-6-41-114.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.41.114]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2011 08:29:37 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20060.55201.970048.970478@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:29:21 -0400 To: Matthias Andree In-Reply-To: <4E5CC4FA.8000302@gmx.de> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> <4E5B5E89.3000700@FreeBSD.org> <20110830102829.GN2084@pcfw2> <4E5CC4FA.8000302@gmx.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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 12:29:38 -0000 Matthias Andree writes: > > 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. > > The point is, most users just agree to the defaults, Which makes me one of "most users". I'll even confess to occasionally changing OPTIONS (during initial installation) more-or-less on a whim, usually but not always of the "of course this should have IPv6/threads/xml enabled" variety. (Which may remove me from "most". :-) > and in that > situation, there is reason to re-prompt. Agreed. An alternative - which might not be much less work - would be simple notification, e.g. "The default build options for port foo/bar have changed.". > One might argue that we don't need to reprompt if the new default > matches the old configuration, but the OPTIONS framework > currently doesn't know "user set this deliberately" or "user just > stuck to the defaults". Reprompting/notifying will be a pain. The alternative is users whose expected installation differs from reality. Robert Huff