Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:55:46 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: Radim Kolar <hsn@netmag.cz> Subject: Re: configuring ports via Makefile.local Message-ID: <5293051E-E2F9-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040731161132.099fae03@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > 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. Ah. We are discussing this on current@, there will be a heads-up when we have agreed on a way to proceed. > [...] >>> 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". Some mechanism for ports to reject invalid configurations should be in place. And of course something like a list of possibilities to choose from. Unfortunately this implies that dialog(1) can't be used. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5293051E-E2F9-11D8-9C56-00039312D914>