Matthias Andree writes:
> > The user decided to go a specific path by initially choosing a
> > specific set of OPTIONs. We *must* assume that the user had good
> > reasons to do so. We should *not* assume the user has no idea what
> > he's doing and needs to be guided. The latter would make make the
> > update process just more complicated.
>
> The point is, most users just agree to the defaults,
Which makes me one of "most users". I'll even confess to
occasionally changing OPTIONS (during initial installation)
more-or-less on a whim, usually but not always of the "of course
this should have IPv6/threads/xml enabled" variety. (Which may
remove me from "most". :-)
>
> and in that
> situation, there is reason to re-prompt.
Agreed. An alternative - which might not be much less work -
would be simple notification, e.g. "The default build options for
port foo/bar have changed.".
> One might argue that we don't need to reprompt if the new default
> matches the old configuration, but the OPTIONS framework
> currently doesn't know "user set this deliberately" or "user just
> stuck to the defaults".
Reprompting/notifying will be a pain. The alternative is users
whose expected installation differs from reality.
Robert Huff
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
