From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 31 13:11:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6100A16A4CE for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:11:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7C643D4C for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:11:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: (qmail 27021 invoked by uid 89); 31 Jul 2004 13:11:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.tecnik93.com) (81.196.204.98) by 0 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2004 13:11:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D048812B; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (it.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08753-05; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A5794F; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:32 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:32 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-Id: <20040731161132.099fae03@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20040731134457.0b88cd39@it.buh.tecnik93.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Radim Kolar Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:11:42 -0000 On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:17:46 +0200 Oliver Eikemeier 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"