Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:03:35 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, nork@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Integrated DEBUG related macros to WITH_DEBUG/WITHOUT_DEBUG Message-ID: <20051113100335.GE69544@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <200511131007.35678.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <200511130038.jAD0cgLb043746@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <200511130900.24801.lofi@freebsd.org> <20051113081633.GD69544@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <200511131007.35678.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:07:29AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Sunday, 13. November 2005 09:16, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:00:21AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > > I don't think it's a good idea at all to unify all debug knobs > > > into one universal WITH/WITHOUT_DEBUG - it requires the user to use a > > > third party portmanager utilitiy or fiddling with conditionals in > > > make.conf if he wants debug symbols on specific ports only. > > > > Well that goes for the other knobs as well of course -- WITH_PERL, > > WITH_PYTHON and other programming extension languages come to mind, as > > do NOPORTDOCS and WITHOUT_GUI (there are some things that I don't need > > a GUI for on my desktop). >=20 > And people have expressed their unhappiness with that status quo repeated= ly,=20 > especially in the context of OPTIONS. >=20 > One very promising proposed solution was to extend the OPTIONS framework = to=20 > support NO_OPTIONS_<portname> and WITH|WITHOUT_<option_choice>_<portname>. >=20 > I agree that this is the way to go - making the currently available switc= hes=20 > even more ambiguous just in order to get more content into KNOBS is=20 > contraproductive. I totally agree that such an implementation combines the best of both worlds. I disagree with waiting to disambiguate options until it is available, but this is just my opinion (looking through either 'make config-recursive' or ports Makefiles isn't my idea of fun as I'm sure it isn't yours). --Stijn --=20 "What kind of a two-bit operation are they running out of this treehouse, Cooper? I have seen some slipshod backwater burgs, but this place takes the cake." -- Special Agent Albert Rosenfield, "Twin Peaks" --n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDdw93Y3r/tLQmfWcRAhDwAKCkJXnr3X5DpH0kbDZiEaZY5RQS3ACfd1u/ xc0jl05/OjOnj8kQg5qNF3I= =SDoX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051113100335.GE69544>