Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:18:36 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/squid: reconsider enabling all options Message-ID: <9970a4e9-3a6e-00d6-dc2e-7890eb5e579f@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <05F80BCC-A94E-43F5-ACFD-7240EC7507B4@lastsummer.de> References: <CAKOb=YZMqaDCHtVYxme_f1p2oQ7CVwWjbR7QoOMNtDL0p7C_rA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAoTqfvyLMFB6Ux1eL7jW5Wi-SZRGUqzWkBMOfWw%2B5smOoXZZQ@mail.gmail.com> <05F80BCC-A94E-43F5-ACFD-7240EC7507B4@lastsummer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/26/16 10:41, Franco Fichtner wrote: > Hi, > >> On 26 Apr 2016, at 10:31 AM, Pavel Timofeev <timp87@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2016-04-26 1:32 GMT+03:00 Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>: >>> >>> I was able to fix my issue by recompiling without the TP_IP and TP_IPF >>> options, but I believe more thought/discussion should be given to all the >>> new options that are now enabled by default in the port. >> >> Do you think all three should be disabled by default, or we can enable >> one of them mostly used? > > Well, the breakage only occurs with local modified builds because the > transparent proxy options weren't enabled at all before. > > It probably needs an OPTIONS_RADIO along with TP_NONE, and others will > have to discuss whether to use TP_IPFW or TP_PF as the main use case. ;) No need for a "TP_NONE" if using OPTIONS_RADIO, it allows for no option to be selected, which implicitly means none. A TP_NONE would be required in case the OPTIONS_SINGLE method was used, which requires one and only one option to be selected. It can be needed if the port requires special case in such a case, so option helpers can be connected to the none case. But no such special care should be needed in this situation. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9970a4e9-3a6e-00d6-dc2e-7890eb5e579f>