[CFT+Brainstorm] Extending the options framework

Thomas Mueller mueller23 at insightbb.com
Thu Dec 6 17:16:48 UTC 2012


> Most of people sems happy with the new framework options however it could be yet
> better, here is an attempt to improve it:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/options%2bradio%2bgroup.diff

> Among the complains people tends to find that OPTIONS_SINGLE aka 1 among N is
> nice but the 0 or 1 among N is not user friendly. So here is OPTIONS_RADIO which
> is natively 0 or 1 among N without the need of adding its name to
> OPTIONS_DEFINE.

> if everyone is happy with OPTIONS_RADIO, then the 0 or 1 feature from
> OPTIONS_SINGLE will be removed later once the ports needed that has been
> converted to OPTIONS_RADIO

> Another feature request I received was the ability to group options into a named
> group, to avoid some sort of sorting of option name (nginx is a good example in
> my mind that could benefit it. So OPTIONS_GROUP has been created
> OPTIONS_GROUP works exactly the same as OPTIONS_MULTI except that is accept 0 or
> N among M

> if you have better name to propose feel free :)

> Please test, send you remark etc.

> regards,
> Bapt

Would this extended options framework be accessed by configuration dialog, or
would it be by editing make.conf or other file?

There needs to be a way to better make clear when exactly one, or at most one
of a group of options can be selected.  NetBSD pkgsrc makes this clear with
the Makefile or options.mk .  I have had instances when, after configuring 
with the dialog, a port couldn't build because I had selected two options not
compatible with each other, and no warning before the port build failed.

In most cases, I was able to build the port after reading the error message 
and reconfiguring the options to avoid the incompatible mix.


Tom


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list