[CFT+Brainstorm] Extending the options framework

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at FreeBSD.org
Thu Dec 6 17:23:47 UTC 2012

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:16:40PM -0500, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > 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
> > 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?
This hasn't change meaning that you can fully configure from make.conf using
OPTIONS_SET/OPTIONS_UNSET or name_SET/name_UNSET or use make config to configure

> 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.

This shouldn't happen anymore since new option framework as the check-config
phase is there to fail if you have chosen incompatible option, which since june
you should be free of those failures for all ports that have been converted.

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

If you encounter one of those failures again then you should report it to the
maintainer, this is a bug and should not happen.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20121206/be3388f6/attachment.sig>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list