OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)

David O'Brien obrien at freebsd.org
Tue Oct 5 18:24:08 UTC 2010

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org>:
> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> > Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
> > customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists.  Thus
> > implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
> make rmconfig ?

I think you've missed my point.

That does not tell me if I, in the past, made a decision that did not
like the maintainer's defaults, or if I just wanted to extract the
sources so I could read the license or figure out what the OPTIONS knobs
were about, etc..

> The best thing to do is switch totally to a way to configure a port
> and remove the other one.

Only if folks agree on what the best way to configure a port is.
I spoke with some co-workers last week, and OPTIONS weren't very
popular with them.  They also stated some of the the issues I listed.

> I think we should try to upgrade the options
> framework with what I said at 4. and 3. It's possible but we need some
> work.

Even without forcing all ports to go in one direction for configuration,
this would be a Good Thing to do.  Hopefully someone with interest will
submit some patches.

-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list