Le 07-02-11 à 10:25, Randall Wood a écrit :
I have noticed that most variants add or delete a configure flag in
the form of --enable-*/--disable-*/--with-*/--without-* and maybe
add or delete a related dependency.
Therefore, I propose that all variants should fit the following forms:
{en|dis}able_package: If a ported software package has optional
compile-time features, the user can give configure command line
options to specify whether to compile them. The options have one of
these forms:
--enable-feature
--disable-feature
(Note that this is slightly different then how configure scripts
work[1]).
with[out]_package: When a port requires, or can optionally use,
other ports that can be or already are installed. The user can give
configure command line options to specify which such external
software to use. A port can be written with options have one of
these forms:
+with_package
+without_package
(Note that this is slightly different then how configure scripts
work[2]).
(Most configure scripts allow these options to passed with further
information in the form of --option=arg where a reasonable default
is set if =arg is not specified. port can't handle that, so =arg is
not allowed in variant names and this proposal does not contemplate
changing that)
Changing this variant structure has, I believe, the following
benefits:
1) Adding the verb enable/disable/use/with/without makes the
variant more meaningful to users. I know there have been comments
on the mailing list about the inability to comment on variants such
that 'port info' is capable of explaining what each variant does.
The verb will help address those complaints.
2) There are currently variants no-*, no_*, and no* These are
inconsistent and do not tell me (the user) if I am disabling a
feature (that some other port may depend on) or simply building the
port without using some other package.
3) Negative variants are confusing. with_*/without_* or enable_*/
disable_* is more readable than +*/-* as an indicator of what is
going on.
I agree on both the usefulness of this undertaking and the logic of
this proposal.
However, two points are less clear for me :
1- You seem to propose "use" and "add" keywords, but I don't see
their usefulness. [en|dis]able and with[out] look plain perfect to
me, unless there is somme case I miss.
2- My experience is that variant names should not include "-" because
of the way arguments are parsed. I always use underscore "_" because
of that, but if I am wrong, I would be glad to know !
Finally, shouldn't ports build most of the functionnalities by
default ? Maybe it is a good time to say it again.
yves
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
