Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 22.06.2014 12:03:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:49:29PM +0200, Marco Steinbach wrote:
Miroslav Lachman schrieb:
I don't need DOCS, EXAMPLES etc. for each port as I normaly do not use
them on servers.
I have this line in make.conf
OPTIONS_UNSET= X11 GUI CUPS DOCS EXAMPLES NLS
Now I need www/xcache port installed with EXAMPLES.
I tried following in make.conf:
xcache_SET= EXAMPLES
or
xcache_SET_FORCE= EXAMPLES
In both cases, xcache is installed without EXAMPLES.
So how can I have globally disabled EXAMPLES and enable it only for one
specific port?
After some testing, I think this could be a bug in the handling of
PORTEXAMPLES / PORTDOCS, since flipping EXAMPLES / DOCS options (and any
other options I tried) with these switches works as expected.
I'll try and have a go at this.
The port should just add EXAMPLES to OPTIONS_DEFINE otherwise the framework is
not entierly followed, if maintainer adds EXAMPLES then a simple
xcache_SET= EXAMPLES or www_xcache_SET= EXAMPLES
will just works.
That is why all DOCS, NLS, EXAMPLES etc should not anymore be hidden.
regards,
Bapt
The current handling, while working as designed, leads to confusing results.
I'll illustrate this for www/xcache:
Does install EXAMPLES:
OPTIONS_SET_FORCE=EXAMPLES
Does install EXAMPLES:
www_xcache_SET_FORCE=EXAMPLES
But this one does not install examples:
OPTIONS_UNSET_FORCE=EXAMPLES
www_xcache_SET_FORCE=EXAMPLES
The first two install EXAMPLES rather by accident, while the last one
doesn't, because it prevents the accident from happening, but promptly
ends up in a different one.
While I'd also prefer maintainers to fix their options, the current
behaviour leads to users trying to access the ports systems internals
for working around this, instead of using the interfaces OPTIONSng provides.
I think that's what my attached patch is mainly about. Prevent users
from introducing more complexity into their world, by keeping it in the
ports framework, instead of exposing them to the current deficiencies of
some 1700 [1] ports.
If we can agree on an approach, I'm first in line to volunteer for
fixing these ports. But that doesn't mean, I wouldn't want my patch to
be commited, of course :)
MfG CoCo
[1] Quick scan of the ports tree:
Ports that are using PORTEXAMPLES / PORTDOCS, but either don't have port
options at all, or just not for DOCS / EXAMPLES: ~1700 -- and I'm
reasonably sure, that this is not too far from the correct numbers.
Index: Mk/bsd.options.mk
===================================================================
--- Mk/bsd.options.mk (revision 358740)
+++ Mk/bsd.options.mk (working copy)
@@ -196,6 +196,15 @@
# complete list
COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST= ${ALL_OPTIONS}
+
+# Handle ports that are using PORTDOCS / PORTEXAMPLES, but do not provide
+# EXAMPLES / DOCS options
+.for m in DOCS EXAMPLES
+. if !empty(PORT_OPTIONS:M${m}) && empty(COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST:M${m})
+COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST+= ${m}
+. endif
+.endfor
+
.for otype in SINGLE RADIO MULTI GROUP
. for m in ${OPTIONS_${otype}}
COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST+= ${OPTIONS_${otype}_${m}}
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
