ports structure and improvement suggestions

[Sideris Michael]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:43:19PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:30:35AM +0300, Sideris Michael wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:20:59PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > > 
> > > Sideris Michael writes:
> > > > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:47:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > > No one is taking away any rights.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course. That's why every ports should have a configuration panel.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Wrong. I do not intend to convert any of my ports to use OPTIONS so
> > > don't bother sending me patches. Many ports are so simple that adding
> > > a configuration panel would be totally unnnecessary and ridiculous.
> > 
> > So, if you have 10 of this ports as dependencies, you prefer go seperately 
> > to each port directory and search through the Makefile to find what KNOBS
> > it provides. Nice.
> 
> Even for ports that do use the OPTIONS framework you often have to search
> through the Makefiles anyway to find out exactly what each option actually
> does.  Using OPTIONS will not gain you much in this regard.

Oh, come on now. Each Option has a description next to it. Let's be reasonable.