Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:47:47 -0700 From: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements Message-ID: <CAMuy=%2BiA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130618171253.GA93721@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130618160037.GA26677@regency.nsu.ru> <op.wyvvztj134t2sn@tech304.office.supranet.net> <20130618171253.GA93721@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax > > and now we want to change it again? :-) > > Yeah, why not? ;-) > > I've discussed that idea before with bapt@ on IRC; there is absolutely > no reasons why we should not use now-free nice, short OPTIONS knob again. > > Obviously, it will happen gradually, in a piece-meal fashion; just like > with recently introduced FOO_*_DEPENDS stuff. No one is talking about > converting all ports at once. > > I personally really don't like to have two, often duplicating, lists of > OPTIONS_DEFINE and _DEFAULT, esp. given the fact that OPTIONS_DEFAULT > tends to break indentation. > > ./danfe > > Perhaps your proposal would carry more weight, feedback and/or testing results if it included a patch and an example port with the modified values for your new idea. This has been quiet successful in the recent past with bapt's proposals for options, uses, etc. -jgh -- Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer jgh@FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power to Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMuy=%2BiA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw>