On Jul 1, 2011, at 19:25, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-07-01 04:18:56 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> We had decided years ago that we wanted standard variants to have
>> standard descriptions, hence the global variant descriptions file.
>> Do we really want to override the description of the x11 variant
>> here (or anywhere)? I assumed we would not.
> 
> There's a good reason to override it: give information specific to
> the port (e.g. what additional features x11 brings for the port).

Well that would be nice if ports did that. On the other hand, before we had 
global variant descriptions, a dozen port authors would describe the same 
feature a dozen different ways, which can be confusing for users as they try to 
work out whether the difference in wording indicates a difference in meaning or 
not. I took a look at the x11 variant situation, since that is the most recent 
variant to have a global description added; here are a couple of the 
descriptions currently in use for this variant:

Enable support for X11 (libsdl)
Enable rendering in X11 (reinteract)
Enable X support (libungif)
Enable X11 support (libwmf)
Enable use of X11 (octave-devel)
Build support for X11 (VLC)
Include X11 interface (links)
Enable X11 use in libraries, and build X11-related applications (heimdal)

Especially egregious are the four vtk ports, which describe the x11 variant in 
four different ways:

build with X11 (vtk-devel)
Build VTK with the MacPorts X11 libraries (vtk)
build VTK with MacPorts X11 (vtk44)
Use X11 (vtk5)

Since all of the above appear to be describing the same thing, I do think it 
would be to our users' advantage if these ports used the same wording for these 
variants, which can now be accomplished by simply deleting the custom variant 
description and letting the default x11 variant description take effect. That's 
why the warning is there.

We might consider adding additional global variant descriptions, for example 
for python or gcc version selection. These variants also notoriously have 
widely varying descriptions for exactly the same feature.

There may be legitimate cases for overriding the default variant description, 
to provide more info (like pari and perhaps glew). Not sure what we should do. 
Either leave things the way they are (and let the port author get a lint 
warning about it), remove the warning for overriding default variant 
descriptions (and thereby remove the automated way by which the authors of the 
above ports would become aware that they should not be writing those 
descriptions themselves anymore, if they have nothing to add), or provide a way 
in the portfile for the author to indicate that yes they really do mean to 
override the default description (seems like overkill).




_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev

Reply via email to