Options name, descriptions and consistency

Warren Block wblock at wonkity.com
Wed May 30 23:40:09 UTC 2012


On Wed, 30 May 2012, Alberto Villa wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On of the reasons of bsd.options.desc.mk is to be able to share common options
>> and descriptions, to have better consistency between ports and to have general
>> meaning descriptions that make more sense, has anyone can improve the
>> description of an option.
>
> While I really like what bsd.options.desc.mk is supposed to do, I
> would like to recommend to any committer/maintainer (and I will
> personally submit a patch for the soon-to-come documentation and for
> the file itself) to think before always relying on on default option
> descriptions.
>
> Sometimes just saying "Enable XXX support" doesn't mean anything to
> the user, and a more explanatory text would be far better, explaining
> maybe what feature one is about to enable instead of just what he is
> going to depend on.

Deja vu:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-options.html#AEN2598

Look at the second tip.  That's brand new, added because users were 
complaining in the forums recently.  (And before, but recently got my 
attention.)

> So, please, do not hesitate to redefine option descriptions for your
> ports if you feel you can add more information for the port specific
> case.

Some of the entries in the KNOBS file could use better descriptions 
also.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list