Integration between portconf and port options
in [Ports]
|
Prev: MASTER_SITE defined by google search result
Next: ports/147935: [MAINTAINER] security/botan: update to 1.8.9
From: Alex Dupre on 22 Jul 2010 06:11 Christopher Key ha scritto: > At present, the interaction between portconf and port options is > somewhat confusing. It's not completely clear to me if you are referring to my portconf port. If so, the interaction is really simple: portconf is complementary to port OPTIONS, that is, it's to be used for ports that don't have OPTIONS or, better, for knobs that are not handled by OPTIONS. If you use it to set knobs handled by OPTIONS, you are using portconf in the wrong way. -- Alex Dupre _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Christopher Key on 25 Jul 2010 19:24
On 22/07/2010 11:11, Alex Dupre wrote: > Christopher Key ha scritto: >> At present, the interaction between portconf and port options is >> somewhat confusing. > It's not completely clear to me if you are referring to my portconf > port. If so, the interaction is really simple: portconf is complementary > to port OPTIONS, that is, it's to be used for ports that don't have > OPTIONS or, better, for knobs that are not handled by OPTIONS. > If you use it to set knobs handled by OPTIONS, you are using portconf in > the wrong way. > Hello Alex, I was referring to any variables set on the command line, make.conf or any linked files, so yes that I was including your portconf port. The problem was what when I first started using portconf, I wasn't aware that the knobs and port OPTIONS were intended to be mutually exclusive, and not being familiar with the ports infrastructure at the time, I found some of the resulting behaviour somewhat confusing. If it is really desired to keep knobs and options wholly separate, then it might at least be desirable to have a warning emitted if duplicate WITH_XXX and WITHOUT_XXX values are detected. I would however argue that there is some merit in having the two as parallel methods. For example, a site wide WITHOUT_X11 might be desirable, which would be honoured in ports that supported it as a knob, and give a suitable default for the ports that supported it as an option. I also prefer the idea of storing any important port options in a single file, which is easily maintained, rather than the hierarchy of files in /var/db/ports. Kind regards, Christopher Key _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org" |