Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:42:44 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues Message-ID: <4E5AA844.5030501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <CADLo838TqZjGH__KNTu3A0wVEnX%2B225HFhBmiEjqj=456y6iag@mail.gmail.com> <4E5A7DAE.8090904@FreeBSD.org> <20110828174640.GC277@magic.hamla.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/28/2011 10:46 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 19:41:02 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > >> just a brain flash: bsd.port.mk currently re-prompts OPTIONS if >> they've changed, for instance, through addition. >> >> Should we change this feature in b.p.mk so that it also re-prompt the >> user when the defaults have changed? The way that (for example) portmaster works now is that if the user has already answered the questions for that port they don't get the dialog again unless a knob has been added or deleted. Personally I would find it surprising to be presented with the dialog again if there were no changes to the set of options. I wouldn't see a change in defaults in this case since my answers are already going to be filled in. For this specific case I probably would have changed the language of the gnutls option to make it clear that it needs to be un-selected, and added a no-op OPTION to make sure that users saw the dialog. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E5AA844.5030501>