configuring ports via Makefile.local

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:17:46 +0200
Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com> wrote:

> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> >> I even want to be able to configure ports that have absolutely no
> >> support for optionsNG, by prasing the Makefile for WITH(OUT)_
> >> tests Of course you will have limited funtionality, since no
> >> explanations of the options are available. Currently the
> >> development has been delayed, due to the localpkg breakage.
> >
> > Yes, a heads-up would have been nice. Does it make sense to produce
> > patches to convert ports without OPTIONS to OPTIONS now or one
> > should wait until optionsNG ? Does it makes sense to convert to
> > options at all?
> 
> Hmmm... The stuff I'm developing is publicly available at
> devel/portmk. A heads-up makes only sense when decisions have been
> made, which is not the case.

I was speaking about the localpkg change.

> The fate of OPTIONS depends on what eivind has in development, and
> what the general perception of OPTIONS and optinonsNG is. I'm sorry
> that my documentation isn't ready yet,

I just run into a thing:

Wouldn't it be better that the system would take OPTIONS defaulting to
"on" as defined if BATCH=yes. I just realised that I have to add
about 40 line to a Makefile to treat this, repeating information that is
already in OPTIONS. It's redundant and this behavior is the way a
Makefile would be written and would work if not using OPTIONS; of course
user defined WITH_* WITHOUT_* would override this.

> I'm currently busy with writing rc.subr stuff.
> 
> >> [...]
> >> at least pkgtools.conf needs to be supported, since it is so wildly
> >> popular.
> >
> > Yes, please. And Radim's portindex too, if it's not to much to ask;
> > it's very nice to have your INDEX rebuilt in 2 minutes ;)
> 
> AFAICS this has nothing to do with the current thread. Besides, I'm
> not sure why everybody is so wild about building his own INDEX.

For portversion to work ?

Since Kris left INDEX is not updated on freesd.org site and besides
DEPENDS are quite different for some ports depending on what else you
have installed.

  [ ... ]

> >> Any port that uses optionsNG should behave like before when a user
> >> choses to use other means than optionsNG to configure the port. So
> >> it's an optional feature, but not required.
> >
> > My want list for options ;) contains:
> > - have a way to output something to the user _before_  the options
> > blue screen
> 
> What do you want to display? IMHO configuration should be a one-step 
> process, perhaps with an optional help file.

Yes. The aim is to be more user friendly. There is little screen space
so options descriptions are more that brief. Plus that I have to check
exclusive options not to be selected after exiting options screen, so
the user have to do a rmconfig if that happens; it would be easier just
to output "don't select X and Y in the same time".


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"