Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:32 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz> Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local Message-ID: <20040731161132.099fae03@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <A1D0B654-E2EB-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040731134457.0b88cd39@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <A1D0B654-E2EB-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:17:46 +0200 Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote: > Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > > [...] > >> I even want to be able to configure ports that have absolutely no > >> support for optionsNG, by prasing the Makefile for WITH(OUT)_ > >> tests Of course you will have limited funtionality, since no > >> explanations of the options are available. Currently the > >> development has been delayed, due to the localpkg breakage. > > > > Yes, a heads-up would have been nice. Does it make sense to produce > > patches to convert ports without OPTIONS to OPTIONS now or one > > should wait until optionsNG ? Does it makes sense to convert to > > options at all? > > Hmmm... The stuff I'm developing is publicly available at > devel/portmk. A heads-up makes only sense when decisions have been > made, which is not the case. I was speaking about the localpkg change. > The fate of OPTIONS depends on what eivind has in development, and > what the general perception of OPTIONS and optinonsNG is. I'm sorry > that my documentation isn't ready yet, I just run into a thing: Wouldn't it be better that the system would take OPTIONS defaulting to "on" as defined if BATCH=yes. I just realised that I have to add about 40 line to a Makefile to treat this, repeating information that is already in OPTIONS. It's redundant and this behavior is the way a Makefile would be written and would work if not using OPTIONS; of course user defined WITH_* WITHOUT_* would override this. > I'm currently busy with writing rc.subr stuff. > > >> [...] > >> at least pkgtools.conf needs to be supported, since it is so wildly > >> popular. > > > > Yes, please. And Radim's portindex too, if it's not to much to ask; > > it's very nice to have your INDEX rebuilt in 2 minutes ;) > > AFAICS this has nothing to do with the current thread. Besides, I'm > not sure why everybody is so wild about building his own INDEX. For portversion to work ? Since Kris left INDEX is not updated on freesd.org site and besides DEPENDS are quite different for some ports depending on what else you have installed. [ ... ] > >> Any port that uses optionsNG should behave like before when a user > >> choses to use other means than optionsNG to configure the port. So > >> it's an optional feature, but not required. > > > > My want list for options ;) contains: > > - have a way to output something to the user _before_ the options > > blue screen > > What do you want to display? IMHO configuration should be a one-step > process, perhaps with an optional help file. Yes. The aim is to be more user friendly. There is little screen space so options descriptions are more that brief. Plus that I have to check exclusive options not to be selected after exiting options screen, so the user have to do a rmconfig if that happens; it would be easier just to output "don't select X and Y in the same time". -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040731161132.099fae03>