OPTIONS framework bug vs. SSL issues

[Robert Huff]

Matthias Andree writes:

>  > The user decided to go a specific path by initially choosing a
>  > specific set of OPTIONs. We *must* assume that the user had good
>  > reasons to do so. We should *not* assume the user has no idea what 
>  > he's doing and needs to be guided. The latter would make make the
>  > update process just more complicated.
>  
>  The point is, most users just agree to the defaults,

	Which makes me one of "most users".  I'll even confess to
occasionally changing OPTIONS (during initial installation)
more-or-less on a whim, usually but not always of the "of course
this should have IPv6/threads/xml enabled" variety. (Which may
remove me from "most". :-) 

>											 and in that
>  situation, there is reason to re-prompt.

	Agreed.  An alternative - which might not be much less work -
would be simple notification, e.g. "The default build options for
port foo/bar have changed.".

>  One might argue that we don't need to reprompt if the new default
>  matches the old configuration, but the OPTIONS framework
>  currently doesn't know "user set this deliberately" or "user just
>  stuck to the defaults".

	Reprompting/notifying will be a pain.  The alternative is users
whose expected installation differs from reality.


					Robert Huff