OPTIONS

[Matthew Seaman]

On 03/10/2010 10:45:01, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>:
>> On 03/10/2010 09:22:46, David DEMELIER wrote:
>>>> 3. OPTIONS are limited to only checkbox YES/NO settings.
>>>>> Why can I not set PREFIX thru the OPTIONS framework and have it come
>>>>> from /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME}/options on the 2nd and later builds?
>>>>> Even the boolean NOPORTDOCS isn't available thru OPTIONS.
>>>>> Thus it is an inconsistent way to configure a port.
>>>>>
>>> I agree. As I said in 4, OPTIONS should follow the defined knob in
>>> make.conf. But for not boolean knobs there is something we can also
>>> do, spawn a little textbox to define an option with a string. Example
>>> :
>>>
>>> [X] WITH_X foo bar
>>> [ ] WITH_Y foo bar baz
>>> [fr_FR en_GB] LANGS to be build
>>>
>>> Here pressing enter on LANGS would spawn a little textbox that can be
>>> fulfilled by the user. The little problem is how to tell to OPTIONS
>>> that it's not a boolean entry.
>>>
>>
>> And the rest?  Pursuing this idea through to its logical conclusion,
>> you'ld end up implementing radio buttons, text entry boxes, drop down
>> lists -- all the normal bits used in html forms.
>>
> 
> Don't you like this? sysinstall was made with dialog. And radiobuttons
> could be used to choose a group of options yes, for example when you
> only need to choose one option in three available choices, then BROKEN
> lines could be removed :-)

Don't get me wrong -- I think the current OPTIONS processing is at once
too limited and too intrusive, and that it is ripe for some serious
improvement.  I'm all for your idea; I just don't think you've gone far
enough.

Now, personally, I quite like the idea of simply sticking entries into
/etc/make.conf to control port compilation settings.  Which would be
fine for me managing my small number of home machines, but certainly not
suitable for all users.  There is also the problem of knowing what
controls are available and having some reasonable idea of what they do,
without the necessity of being a make(1) guru or grovelling through the
guts of dozens of ports.

Giving OPTIONS processing a lot more flexibility, and the capability to
display help text etc. (yes -- I know there have been attempts in this
direction already) plus pushing some of the logic up from the Makefile
into the OPTIONS dialogue[*] would certainly improve the user experience.

Something with the capabilities of sysinstall would be a step in the
right direction, but I think most would agree, sysinstall is a bit
clunky and confusing to new users.  An alternative that behaves like a
web form is going to be a lot more accessible to J. Random User.

But that is really beyond the limits of what I have any idea about
coding.  I can see how to prototype it readily enough as a web app, but
having to fire up an instance of apache or something just to install a
few ports just ain't right.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

[*] Ever had the experience of clicking on OPTIONS settings and then
finding the port won't accept that combination of OPTIONS?  That's
frustrating, especially when combined with the use of eg. portmaster(8)
where choosing OPTIONS can happen quite a while before attempting to
build the port.

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk               Kent, CT11 9PW

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20101003/cb206676/signature.pgp