[HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:33:56PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Folks, when moving forward with optionsng, do we want to convert
> NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES to options everywhere? I fear that if we
> do, way too many ports which otherwise have no options will start asking
> if I want the docs -- which I don't really care either way (unless that
> brings in new dependencies).
> 
> Maybe it would be best if ports which otherwise don't have options, and
> for which building docs don't require new dependencies would not put
> DOCS and EXAMPLES into options? What do you think?

You can still switch to optionsng, if you don't define DOCS in OPTIONS_DEFINE
but just use the if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} you are using optionsng but won't have
the dialog showing up

Just make sure to .include <bsd.ports.options.mk> in any case.

this is a unvolunteer side effect but this works.

if you don't want the dialog just add NO_DIALOG to your make.conf like I do but
that is another problem.

anyway yes NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES should disappear in long term goal
because they are inconsistent, but what they do should be respected in because
they are useful, and for compatibility DOCS and EXAMPLES are enabled by default.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120530/357b5d29/attachment.pgp