OPTIONS

[David O'Brien]

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 11:45:01AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/3 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>:
> > On 03/10/2010 09:22:46, David DEMELIER wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> [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? Â 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 folks hate that.  jkh wanted to move the TurboC text-GUI library,
but we never did.

Accelerators are one of the things that dialog seems to not handle very
well.  In fact our OPTIONS suggest they are supported, but hitting "N"
when building ports/misc/mc-light does not deselect NLS.


> > In fact, you might just as well write a small HTML form, display it
> > using lynx or w3c or some other text mode browser[*], and then have the
> > form action feed into a CGI program that outputs a small Makefile with
> > appropriate variable definitions in it.

I like this statement -- as it shows just how complex this will get when
taken to its natural conclusion.

-- 
-- 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"