Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 06:43:07 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Alberto Villa <avilla@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Options name, descriptions and consistency Message-ID: <20120531044306.GH85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205301737150.77445@wonkity.com> References: <20120530063334.GD9952@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <CAJp7RHY_xXBX%2B5nwAwDBR%2Bk%2Bf_Ho9%2BROVCT-3z54hR0b6dFfbA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205301737150.77445@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:40:08PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Alberto Villa wrote: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Deja vu: >=20 > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefil= e-options.html#AEN2598 >=20 > Look at the second tip. That's brand new, added because users were=20 > complaining in the forums recently. (And before, but recently got my=20 > attention.) Thank you!! >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Some of the entries in the KNOBS file could use better descriptions=20 > also. Let's focus on bsd.options.desc.mk descriptions improvements as the KNOBS f= ile will die $soon :) ($soon being undefined yet :) regards, Bapt --CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/G9toACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExqQwCgkZLUKC2QfCLEAhHsxnyEPK2f 2BwAoKbKf4id0Mer4v0U2SBIKyMCdCli =NUQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120531044306.GH85232>