Help understanding ports tinderbox failure report?

Tijl Coosemans tijl at FreeBSD.org
Mon Sep 23 15:55:26 UTC 2013


On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:28:19 +0200 Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> On 2013-Sep-23, 11:16, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:46:00 +0200 Pietro Cerutti wrote:
>>> On 2013-Sep-23, 10:23, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>>>> Since you converted NOPORTDOCS, could you also add OPTIONS_DEFINE=DOCS?
>>> 
>>> i'm not sure it's common to add OPTIONS only for DOCS.
>> 
>> It's supposed to be.  The dialog won't appear if users set or unset the
>> DOCS option in make.conf (just like adding NOPORTDOCS to make.conf before).
> 
> Can you please elaborate on this?

A few months ago there was a discussion about some ports having a single
DOCS option while others didn't.  This was considered inconsistent and
there was a request for an official policy.  Some people wanted the
option while others didn't want to be bothered with such simple dialogs
everywhere.  The consensus that was eventually reached was to always add
a DOCS option even if it's the only option (same for NLS and some others),
but to allow users to set options in make.conf and let the dialog stay
hidden if all options for a port are already defined.

So, if you set DOCS in make.conf (e.g. OPTIONS_UNSET= DOCS) all dialogs
where DOCS is the only option stay hidden.

This way users who want to configure DOCS separately per port can do so
and users who want to configure DOCS globally can do so as well.  This
works for all options by the way, not just DOCS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20130923/d71a8e1b/attachment.sig>


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list