Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements
jgh at FreeBSD.org
Tue Jun 18 19:47:54 UTC 2013
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org>wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax
> > and now we want to change it again? :-)
> Yeah, why not? ;-)
> I've discussed that idea before with bapt@ on IRC; there is absolutely
> no reasons why we should not use now-free nice, short OPTIONS knob again.
> Obviously, it will happen gradually, in a piece-meal fashion; just like
> with recently introduced FOO_*_DEPENDS stuff. No one is talking about
> converting all ports at once.
> I personally really don't like to have two, often duplicating, lists of
> OPTIONS_DEFINE and _DEFAULT, esp. given the fact that OPTIONS_DEFAULT
> tends to break indentation.
Perhaps your proposal would carry more weight, feedback and/or testing
results if it included a patch and an example port with the modified values
for your new idea.
This has been quiet successful in the recent past with bapt's proposals for
options, uses, etc.
Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer
jgh at FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power to Serve
More information about the freebsd-ports