From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 15 23:21:07 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 647B016A4CE for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:21:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mta13.adelphia.net (mta13.mail.adelphia.net [68.168.78.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C579343D1F for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:21:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from parv@chvlva.adelphia.net) Received: from default.chvlva.adelphia.net ([69.160.70.47]) by mta13.adelphia.netESMTP <20041015232106.UCLR15118.mta13.adelphia.net@default.chvlva.adelphia.net>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:21:06 -0400 Received: by default.chvlva.adelphia.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C25D5A21; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:23:32 -0400 From: Parv To: Frank Laszlo Message-ID: <20041015232332.GC11786@moo.holy.cow> Mail-Followup-To: Frank Laszlo , FreeBSD Ports References: <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <416C35A5.4040703@vonostingroup.com> <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org> <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org> <416DAB52.5070404@struchtrup.com> <416DAD75.7000504@vonostingroup.com> <416DB213.3020708@struchtrup.com> <20041014095355.GA61134@elendil.ru> <20041014135041.GB4625@iib.unsam.edu.ar> <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com> cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: alternative options for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: f-questions List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:21:07 -0000 in message <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com>, wrote Frank Laszlo thusly... > > I know a lot of users feel intimidated by the Makefile's in ports, > and would not dare open one up in an editor. Even if they did, > they wouldnt understand it fully. I personally mostly disagree. > so what if the ports had a target that listed possible options > within the Makefile, and what exactly they did. ...and actually used that file, see proposal below, to set the appropriate knobs. Comments would be used as they are currently in Makefile, perl programs, and shell scripts. > Maybe this would require another file in the ports, like > 'pkg-options' It would be formated something like this > > WITH_SOMEFEATURE Add so and so feature to the package. > WITH_SOMETHINGELSE This will create something here. > That way a user could just type something like 'make listoptions' > and it will give a nice list of build options for a specific port. ...or provide the opportunity to edit the options file -- instead of the Makefile in which knobs can be almost anywhere -- to indicate the desired options. > Anyone have any feedback on this? I like it. - Parv --