Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements

Jason Helfman 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.
>
> ./danfe
>
>
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.

-jgh

--
Jason Helfman          | FreeBSD Committer
jgh at FreeBSD.org     | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh  | The Power to Serve


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list