Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:29:35 +0200 From: "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@corecode.ath.cx> To: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> Cc: stijn@win.tue.nl, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nbm@mithrandr.moria.org Subject: Re: Proposed new 'options' target Message-ID: <20020722172935.20933378.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20020722144540.GV52296@squall.waterspout.com> References: <20020720162928.GD37802@clan.nothing-going-on.org> <20020722074605.GC3222@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20020722140603.06bc1ae1.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> <20020722133510.GR52296@squall.waterspout.com> <20020722161824.53353724.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> <20020722144540.GV52296@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=.mx(+2JJ1yFj(ot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:45:40 -0500 Will Andrews wrote: > > like the sed_inplace stuff. though i think that things _needed_ to build > > a port should be in the base system (like the sed -i now both in current > > and stable) > Regarding the "need" to be in the base system, I think that > "need" should be evaluated very strictly. We don't really NEED > options to build ports, right? :) that's perfectly true though it complicates everything if bsd.port.mk needs to check for the binary being installed etc. if it's in the base system everything is fine (but one needs to add support for older versions by depending on a port or whatever. this again is not very nice :) > > version is for a change in the options. if the options don't change > > there is no point in presenting the options over and over again when > > updating and compiling. > > but if there is a change (options removed or added) the old saved > > options may be no more valid. so the user needs to choose again. > If the options are changed, wouldn't this be reflected in > PORTREVISION? I suppose, an additional granularity wouldn't hurt > things too much. yes, PORTREVISION would be bumped. but changing the port's version doesn't mean the options need to be chosen again. if the options don't change i don't want to have that selection dialog presented over and over again. > > sel, msel and text are some ideas for options that might be needed for > > some ports. maybe for language selection, themes, or whatever. dunno > > really. but i thought there may be a need for that. > > If you can't clarify what the purpose would be, you surely can't > implement their usage, and thus they have no purpose here. true. that's why they are commented out and got a `-' prepended meaning a "maybe" target. perhaps some porters here see an urge for some types of options other than yes/no ones. feedback? cheers simon -- /"\ http://corecode.ath.cx/#donate \ / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign / \ Against HTML Mail and News --=.mx(+2JJ1yFj(ot Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9PCTlr5S+dk6z85oRAigQAKDw8gvsxNFjNbu9nvqumTgU9vg2ygCfV2Ef lBekGtf7hJvYypturqMjV04= =Ej8Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.mx(+2JJ1yFj(ot-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020722172935.20933378.corecode>